


| nt bs Divsion VI 
a a Section } LP aL 


‘ 


Sad, of Ae er 
. aa : 
Bg 


= 
ae 
_ “ad, 












{ eA ee Al i F ROR IE 

¥ j : 5 ; perN eee 
Fett 
q 


\ a, iS PO CaTea) ed ch 
4 i Tit SW R ot i ri a yeaey ahs 


' ay 
AS 6 
TVR ko 


ne Bi z . 
A SAN ee. aan 





AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
NEW YORK - BOSTON + CHICAGO - DALLAS 
ATLANTA + SAN FRANCISCO 


MACMILLAN & CO., Limitep 
LONDON + BOMBAY + CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 


THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, L7. 
TORONTO 


AN 
HISTORICAL SURVEY OF 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


From the Earliest Times 
To the Nineteenth Century 


BY 


v4 
EPHRAIM FRISCH 


jew Pork 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
1924 


All rights reserved 


CopyRIGHT, 1924, 
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 





Set up and printed. 
Published May, 1924. 


Printed in the United States of America by 
J. J. LITTLE AND IVES COMPANY, NEW YORK 


To My Wife 
RUTH COHEN FRISCH 





PREFACE 


THE word philanthropy has been used in the title 
of this essay rather than the term charity because 
the field covered by Jewish ministrations to those 
in need was broader than that of relief alone. A 
fuller explanation is found in the Conclusion. 

The period surveyed in this study ends with the 
changes set in motion by the beginnings of Jewish 
political and economic emancipation. Thereafter, 
as is brought out in the text, Jewish philanthropy 
takes a decidedly new trend, becoming both more 
secular and more highly organized. The fall of 
the Jewish State in the first century of the common 
era has been chosen as an important dividing point 
in the period treated. The restrictions upon their 
self-determination from that time on (until emanci- 
pation) left the Jews without authority to control 
the basic conditions of poverty. 

The author desires to acknowledge his deep 
gratitude for valuable guidance and assistance to 
Prof. Richard J. H. Gottheil, of the Division of 
Semitic Languages, Columbia University, for whose 
department this dissertation was written; to Prof. 
Samuel McCune Lindsay of the faculty of Social 


Science of Columbia; to Prof. Israel Abrahams of 
Vii 


Vill PREFACE 


Cambridge University, England; to Dr. Ismar 
Ellbogen, Dean of the Rabbinical College at Berlin, 
Germany; and to the late A. S. Freidus and I. 
Broyde of the Jewish Literature Division of the 
New York Public Library. He is also greatly in- 
debted to Mr. Harry Karp, of the last-named de- 
partment, and to the librarians of the Jewish 
Theological Seminary for practical aid. 


January, 1924 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART ONE 


From THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF THE STATE 
PAGE 
CuapTeR I—TuHeE Bist—e. . . DV Ra Dee ea re Ong 3 
The Rise of a Problem of pies Utterances of the 
Prophets. Pentateuchal Laws and Thought. Agri- 
cultural Provisions. The Psalms and the Poor. Wis- 
dom Literature. Biblical Episodes and Exemplars. 
Economic Measures. Motives of Biblical Philan- 
thropy. The Legacy of the Bible and the Biblical 
Period to the Subsequent Centuries. 


Cuaprer II—TuHeE ApocryPHA . . . « « «© e« 25 
Ecclesiasticus. Tobit. 

CuHapter IIJI—TuHe Earty SYNAGOGUE AND COMMUNAL 
PEFPARETVACIRGAMIZATION] (out rs 40) etal cd ile Yo bys at 


The Spread of Synagogues. The Beginnings of Or- 
ganized Communal Relief. The Synagogue as the 
Center. Influence on Early Christian Charity. 


PART TWO 


FRoM THE FALL OF THE STATE TO THE BEGINNINGS OF 
EMANCIPATION 


Paar Berl INTRODUCTORY (60 60 se mis ce el te 43 


Cuapter II—Tue Tatmup. . . 48 


Outlines of a System of Orenieed Relief j in . Mish- 
nah. The Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Ex- 
cerpts Quoted. 

ix 


x TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER ILI—THE CopEs AND ETHICAL Works . 


The Standard Codes. Maimonides’ “Portions of the 
Poor.” His “Eight Degrees” of Charity Quoted. 
Jacob ben Asher’s “Four Rows.” ‘The Introductory 
Paragraph to his “Laws of Charity” Quoted. Joseph 
Caro’s “Shulchan Aruk.” Inspirational Sources other 
than Codes. Quotation from Bachya’s “Duties of the 
Heart.” 


CHapTEeR IV—Ru.LinGc PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 


First Premise: The Poor and the Dependent the Spe- 
cial Wards of God. Second Premise: All Goods in 
Last Analysis Come from and Belong to God. First 
Basic Principle: Charity not a Favor but an Obliga- 
tion. Second Principle: Righteousness Finds Its Most 
Practical Expression in the Doing of Charity. 


CHAPTER V—MotTIvES AND SANCTIONS 


The Will of God the Ultimate Sanction of Conduct. 
Direct Controlling Motives: Terrestrial Benefits and 
Rewards in the Hereafter. Honor as an Incentive. 
Sympathy and Love. Maimonides Quoted. 


CHAPTER VI—CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 


Two General Currents in Jewish Philanthropy: 
Charity (Zedakah) and Loving-kindness (Gemilut 
Chasadim). Types of Personal Service. 


CHAPTER VII—GENERAL PusBiic RELIEF AND ITs Ap- 
MINISTRATION 


The Two Public Charity Funds: The Coffer Coe 

pah) and Plate (Tamchui). Voluntary and Com- 
pulsory Aspects of Giving. Sources of Revenue. The 
Congregational Connection. ‘The Overseers of the 
Poor: Calibre; Function; Reaction of the Poor. 
Methods of Procedure: Case Work; Precedence; In- 
vestigation. Nature and Quantity of Relief: Norms 
and Standards for Ordinary and Special Aid. 


PAGE 


61 


74 


84 


OI 


100 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER VIII—Setr-Support AND PAUPERIZATION 


Laudation of Labor. Limitations to Generosity. Reg- 
ulation of Begging. 


CHAPTER IX—MIsCELLANEOUS ‘ToPiIcs 


The Tithe. Defectives. Delinquents. Aid to Non- 
Jews. 


CHAPTER X—TuHeE RIsE oF SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 


Specialization of Funds. Emergence of Separate Or- 
ganizations. Older Institutions: Shelters, Almshouses, 
Hospitals and Free Medical Care. Other Institutions 
and Societies: Burial Societies, Mutual Benefit Asso- 
ciations. The 17th Century the Century of the Spread 
of Societies. Redemption of Captives. Collection for 


Poor of Holy Land. 


CHAPTER XI—CHANGING CONDITIONS AND THEIR Er- 
FECTS 


New Internal and External Developments Calling 
for Changes in Charity Administration. The Effects 
of Political Emancipation. The Beginnings of Recon- 
struction. London and Paris as Examples. Brief 
Sketch of the Development of Jewish Philanthropy 
during the Contemporary Period. 


CHAPTER XII—CoNncLUSION i abi are he em 
Thariep tile OURS AN Ip Sa Ie ROAR nes Se ge URNA 


I NDEX r ° ® o ° ° e s ° * ° o ° ry 


130 


137 


165 


178 
183 


189 





PART ONE 


FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE FALL OF 
THE STATE. 





AN HISTORICAL SURVEY OF 
JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


CHAPTER I 
THE BIBLE 


THERE is very little need for charitable assistance, 
personal or financial, during the primitive stages 
of a people’s life. The family or clan takes care 
of its weak or disabled dependents. Our purpose 
is to find the first perceptible traces of the play of 
the philanthropic impulse among the people of 
Israel during that period of the usual course of a 
nation’s development when permanent settlements 
arise. Even then we must not expect to see poverty 
become a problem until those settlements have 
grown large. While, asa result of natural causes,— 
loss of the breadwinner, sickness, senility, disable- 
ment, deformity—there is found a certain irreduci- 
ble minimum of distress everywhere, this distress is 
easily alleviated by relatives and neighbors as long 
as society presents simple conditions. Just as soon 
as urban conditions develop and congestion of 

3 


4 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


population begins, the well-springs of philanthropy 
must be tapped. 

Disregarding the controversies as to when the 
Hebrew migration reached Palestine, which even 
the recently enlarged acquaintance with Egyptian 
and Mesopotamian history has failed to determine 
conclusively, and taking our own stand at once on 
the common ground of widely accepted progressive 
opinion, we find the Hebrews at about 1000 B.c. 
living in permanent settlements on the soil of Pales- 
tine, with Jerusalem as the newly established capital. 
Conditions of life were altogether rural. Jerusalem 
itself, although a walled city, could not have had 
a population of more than two or three thousand 
souls. Agriculture was the main, indeed well-nigh 
the exclusive, industry. Town life was slow in 
developing. Cities—very small ones, judged by our 
modern standards—began to arise at the time of 
Ahab and Elijah, in the early decades of the gth 
century.1 These urban communities reached a stage 
of considerable density of population by the middle 


* An echo of the acts of aggression which monarchs allow them- 
selves occasionally and which in this instance is reminiscent of 
King John and the events culminating in Magna Carta, comes 
down to us in the episode of Ahab and Jezebel’s appropriation of 
Naboth’s family estate and the judicial murder that accompanied 
it (x Kings, 20). This episode bears the earmarks of a historical 
incident. Such high-handed acts indulged in by those next in 
power as well as by the sovereign, later—in Amos’ days—became 
common and exercised a strong bearing on economic conditions by 
increasing poverty and kindling resentment. Still, at the time in 
question (the gth century) these acts must have been the exception 
and not the rule. 


THE BIBLE F 


of the following century,—a stage which brought 
with it the usual train of poverty, exploitation and 
corruption. 

The conquests of Jeroboam II in the North and 
those of Uzziah in the South had resulted not only 
in much booty but also in unusual trade opportuni- 
ties and had speeded the growth of large and 
powerful commercial classes. While the upper 
classes revelled in wealth and luxury, the great 
body of the people suffered from want and exploita- 
tion. Inthe decades that ensued the denunciation of 
these unbearable conditions by those two great 
tribunes of the people, the prophet Amos at Bethel, 
in Israel, and the prophet Isaiah at Jerusalem, in 
Judah (whose chapters on the economic and social 
abuses give every evidence of being contemporary 
documents), furnishes indubitable evidence of the 
misery and industrial wrongs prevalent at that time 
in the Hebrew commonwealths. Social maladjust- 
ments were not limited to city life. The landlord 
classes in the country grew fat, no doubt, at the 
expense of the small farmers and laborers; and the 
summer and winter homes of the magnates, includ- 
ing houses of ivory and other enduring monuments 
of display attacked by Amos, stood out in glaring 
contrast not only to the dingy shacks of the down- 
trodden city proletariat, but also to the miserable 
hovels of the country poor. The need for philan- 
thropic effort must have been dire and constant. 

It is in the utterances of the great prophets who 


6 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


at this point loomed up as the outstanding figures 
in Hebrew life and who for four centuries con- 
tinued as its master spirits that philanthropy reaches 
a new height, hitherto unattained and _ scarcely 
surpassed thereafter. It remains the unique and 
everlasting distinction of the great prophets that 
they made clear the direct connection between 
economic oppression and want. As far as we know, 
they were the first ones anywhere to attack the 
problem of poverty at its very root. To their 
minds destitution was fundamentally a consequence 
of social and economic exploitation. ‘The sources 
of want they traced to undue advantage taken by 
the strong over the weak. 

These social wrongs they denounced fearlessly. 
Taking their stand on the basic principle that all 
men are brothers, the children of the self-same one 
God,? they attacked, in words of fire, the oppression 
of the poor and the defenceless. Amos, Isaiah and 
Micah were especially severe in their indictment of 
this phase of social wrongdoing. The first assailed 
those ‘‘who sell the needy for the price of a pair 
of shoes” and deny justice to the humble.* Isaiah 


*Mal. 2:10: “Have we not all one father? Has not one God 
created us?” ‘This principle took root in a soil of feeling and is 
reiterated or implied again and again throughout the writings of 
the prophets. 

*2:6-8: Also, “Ye kine of Bashan... that oppress the poor 
and crush the needy,” addressed to the voluptuous women (4:1); 
“that trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of 
wheat,” probably directed against the merchants who supplied the 
farmers on a tenant-sharing basis (5:11); who “swallow the 


THE BIBLE 


cried out, ‘‘What mean ye that ye ¢rush my people 
and grind the face of the poor?” and castigated 
monopolization of land and buildings.47 And Micah 
bitterly arraigns those wolves of society ‘‘who eat 
the flesh of my people and flay their skin from off 
them and break their bones,” and those who through 
manipulation dispossess people of their fields and 
homesteads.®> ‘The conception of the merging of 
philanthropy with social justice, so that the line of 
demarcation is wiped out, attained its most eloquent 
formulation in the Second Isaiah, in the passages, 
‘Ts it not to deal thy bread to the hungry,” etc. 
(58:7-8), and “If thou take away from the 
midst of thee the yoke,” etc. (58: 10-12). When 
the cycle of Scripture readings at public wor- 
ship was instituted some time later, this 58th 
chapter of Isaiah was adopted as the lesson from 
the prophets (Haphtarah) for the holiest day 
in the religious calendar, the Day of Atonement. 
It remains to this day a superb statement of 
what constitutes social service in its broadest in- 
terpretation. 

Side by side with the written exhortations and 
protestations of the great prophets, covering 
roughly the four centuries between the middle of 
the eighth and the middle of the fourth centuries 


needy and destroy the poor of the land,” in rebuke of exploitation 
and profiteering generally (8:4). 
“3:15. See also 1:23; 3:16-17; 5:7, 8, 203 10:1-23 11°4-53 16:4-5. 
*3:1-3; 2:1-2. The elements of social justice are also sketched 
briefly in Ezekiel’s description of the righteous man (Ezek. 18:7-9). 


8 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


B.c., and, to some extent, no doubt, drawing their 
inspiration from the prophetic utterances, came the 
mass of injunctions, imbedded in an appropriate 
setting of sentiment, embodied in the Pentateuch, 
which, of the whole sacred canon, carried the great- 
est weight of authority. 

The oldest continuous section of the Pentateuch, 
the Book of Deuteronomy, promulgated by the re- 
former King, Josiah, in the year 621 B.c., shows dis- 
tinct traces of the teachings of the contemporary 
prophet Jeremiah and of his predecessors. Its 
characteristically humane spirit reveals itself, among 
other ways, in its tender solicitude for the poor de- 
pendent. ‘The passage that appears to have made 
the deepest impression on the minds of subsequent 
generations, judging from its constant use as the 
source from which all important later writings draw 
their texts, is Chapter 15, verses 7-11: 


“Tf there be among thee a needy man, any one of thy 
brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the 
Lord thy God giveth thee; thou shalt not harden. thy heart, 
nor shut thy hand from thy needy brother. 

“But thou shalt open wide thy hand unto him, and thou 
shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, which his 
want requireth. 

“Beware that there be not a wicked thought in thy heart, 
saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; 
and thy eye be thus evil against thy needy brother, so that 
thou wouldst give him nought; and if he cry concerning 
thee unto the Lord, it will be sin in thee; 

“Thou shalt surely give him, and thy heart shall not be 


THE BIBLE 9 


grieved when thou givest unto him; for because of this thing 
the Lord thy God will bless thee in all thy work, and in 
all the acquisition of thy hand. 

“For the needy will not cease out of the land; therefore 
do I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open wide thy hand 
unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy 
land.” 


Admonitions of similar nature occur in other secs 
tions of the Pentateuch. 

An examination of these general admonitions and 
of the more specific injunctions which will be de- 
scribed later leads us to make the following ob- 
servations. Helping the unfortunate members of 
society is in the Torah (Pentateuch) commanded, 
not requested. For benevolence is viewed, not as 
a matter of grace, but as an imperative duty.® 
While only the boldest spirits dared openly concern 
themselves with the welfare of non-Israelites, and 
the others either accepted as a matter of course the 
racial and religious prejudices and animosities then 
prevailing everywhere, or reluctantly yielded to the 
social order as it was, feeling that all efforts to 
change it would be futile (in this respect resembling 
in their action the attitude of many modern lovers 
of democracy today with regard to the negro and to 


*“The right to assistance, this right, which economists and so- 
ciologists of various schools are still discussing—this question was 
definitely solved by the Bible long ago. ... Yes, the Bible has 
proclaimed the right to assistance for those who have nothing and 
the duty to assist on those who have means.” Joseph Lehmann, 
“Assistance publique et privée d’aprés l’antique Législation juive,” 
Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 35, p. 14. 


10 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Asiatic problems), and thus limited largely their 
efforts to Israelites, the lawgivers and exhorters, 
like the prophets, took the high ground, charac- 
teristic of the social outlook of modern times, that 
all persons were equal, the unfortunate being the 
equals of the fortunate, since they were all brothers, 
the children of the one God.? Explanations might 
differ as to how the unfortunate sank into distress, 
whether their condition was due to sin or indolence, 
or to other causes, or whether it must be ascribed 
to the inscrutable ways of God; nevertheless, they 
were to be regarded as the equals of the successful 
and had the same fundamental claim, in the eyes 
of the exhorters and lawgivers, to the land and its 
products as had the rich, God alone, the father of 
all, being both the owner and apportioner. 

With this premise of human equality based on 
common divine origin, the Torah made provision 
for the distressed classes in a variety of ways not 
at all partaking of the nature of alms, but rather, 
one might say, of enlightened profit-sharing. ‘There 
were ordinary measures of assistance suited to the 
recurring seasons, and having to do with the land 
and its products. Perpetual alienation of ancestral 
land and homestead was forbidden by the law of 
the Jubilee, a measure designed to prevent per- 
manent impoverishment. If this measure had not 
been nullified, as time went on, in actual application, 
it would have gone a long way to accomplish the 


"Cf. Deut. 14:1. “Ye are children of the Lord, your God.” 


THE BIBLE II 


desired result. The spontaneous growths of field 
and garden during the Sabbatical year—every 
seventh year,—were left free to all comers, with 
special thought and mention of the poor (Ex. 
23:11). Every third year a tithe—one-tenth—of 
all products had to be given to the needy (Deut. 
14:28-29). At every harvest a corner of all grain 
fields (Lev. 19:9 and 23:22), amounting approxi- 
mately to one-sixtieth, the gleanings, and the for- 
gotten sheaves, were left for the poor and stranger; 
and at every ingathering of the vineyard and olive- 
yard the imperfect and topmost clusters of grapes 
were reserved for them (Lev. 19:10). In connec- 
tion with the celebration of the three pilgrimage 
festivals (Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles) when 
attendance at the capital was required of all families 
(and notably of the males), it was ordained that 
the stranger, the widow and the orphan be invited 
to share the food of the pilgrims (Deut. 16:11-14). 
Special consideration and humanity were enjoined 
in the treatment of the weak. ‘The stranger was not 
to be oppressed; the widow and the orphan were not 
to be harshly dealt with (Ex. 22: 20-23; 23:9; Lev. 
19 :23-34). With a clear understanding that an 
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it was 
legislated that even when it was to the disadvantage 
of the lender, the borrower was to be given a loan 
without interest (Deut. 15:7-11), and that the lat- 
ter’s garment, taken in pledge, was to be returned 
to him by nightfall (Ex. 22 :24-26; Lev. 25 :35-38). 


Le JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


These injunctions were surrounded by a glow of 
sentiment. The Israelite was constantly reminded 
not only of the brotherhood of all men, rich and 
poor alike, but also of the time when he himself 
had had to drink of the bitter cup of poverty, oppres- 
sion and alienage—his grievous experience in the 
land of Egypt. Indeed, the entire Pentateuch, and 
more particularly, the book of Deuteronomy, 
breathes a fine spirit of humanitarian sympathy for 
the weak and dependent. 

The land provisions for the handicapped classes 
are of course the product of a society whose essential 
pursuits were agricultural. Even when the malad- 
justments due to the rise of industrial problems in 
the cities became acute enough to challenge the 
attention of the prophets, the vast majority of the 
people must have been engaged in tilling the soil and 
in grazing. 

The sentiments in regard to relief of poverty 
found expression in legislation, as has been indi- 
cated, as early as 621, and perhaps earlier. Their 
expansion and development continued throughout the 
period that witnessed the completion of the Penta- 
teuch, ending, roughly speaking, about 450 B.c. 
They commanded authority, very likely, before the 
books of the Pentateuch were canonized and re- 
tained their force, as law actually and practically 
carried out, until the conquest of the state at the 
hands of Vespasian and Titus (70 A.D.), when the 


THE BIBLE 13 


loss of homeland and virtual exclusion from land- 
owning and land cultivation rendered their observ- 
ance impossible except by the remnants of the popu- 
lation left in Palestine after the carnage and the 
deportations attendant upon the conquest. 

Many times the question has been raised as to 
whether these ordinances dealing with the sharing 
in the products of the soil by the distressed elements 
of society were really ever in operation or were 
merely legislative ideals like the legislation evolved 
in the exile by Ezekiel for enforcement in a future 
restored commonwealth. Were the laws of the 
Jubilee and Sabbatical years and the ordinances 
relating to tithes, gleanings, and so forth, actually 
observed, or were they simply carried on the statute 
books in the hope that they would be observed, 
though in reality proving to be dead letter legisla- 
tion? 

The ordinance of the Jubilee year appears to 
have been actually observed only during the period 
when all the tribes were in possession of Palestine, 
i.c., until the deportation of Reuben, Gad and the 
half tribe of Manasseh in 734 B.c. From that time 
on it was observed nominally, in the expectation of 
the return of the tribes, until the fall of the southern 
state when it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar 
(586 B.c.). After that the ordinance seems to have 
fallen into disuse.® 


® Jewish Encyclopedia, “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee,” 


14 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


There is, however, abundant and conclusive evi- 
dence that the law of the Sabbatical year was rigor- 
ously observed throughout the existence of the 
Jewish commonwealth, including the period of the 
Second Temple. The Maccabean defenders of 
the fortress of Bethsur had to surrender and those 
of Jerusalem were forced to make peace with the 
Syrians because of the shortage of provisions due to 
the Sabbatical year. (I Maccab. 6:49, 53). Indeed, 
the agricultural clauses of this law, calling for the 
non-cultivation of the land during that year, are 
observed to this day by Jews resident in Palestine 
and their further perpetuation is the subject of de- 
bate at the present time in the newly developed 
colonies in Palestine. 

That the regulations referring to the first fruits 
and to tithes were observed is evident from the 
history of the Maccabees where there is recorded 
the revival of their observance in connection with 
the re-dedication of the Temple (I Maccab. III. 
49). From the Book of Ruth and from other 
sources we have every reason to believe that there 
was scrupulous compliance with the legislative pro- 
visions dealing with the corners of the fields, the 
gleanings, etc.® 

The Psalms were next in importance to the utter- 
ances of the prophets and to Pentateuchal legislation 
in the creation of philanthropic sentiment and the 
stimulation of charitable deeds, in the Biblical era. 


* Josephus: Antiquities, Book IV, Ch. 8, Sec. 21. 


THE BIBLE 15 


The Psalms, the book of common prayer and song 
made up of hymns composed ?° for and used by the 
worshippers in the Second Temple and later assigned 
a place of the first importance in the daily prayers 
and study periods of the synagogue, are fairly shot 
through with a profound and overwelling sympathy 
for the poor and lowly. Indeed, the Psalmists fre- 
quently identified the needy and the humble with 
the true Israel (e.g. Psalm 37:14, 21), and still 
more often, with the righteous and innocent, while 
they mentally associated the rich with violence and 
wickedness. In their consciousness the successful 
and the ruthless were one and the same—the oppres- 
sors of the innocent destitute, whose sole compen- 
sation was, in the opinion of the Psalmists, com- 
munion with God,?? though in the end all would be 
well. | 

If the Psalms be interpreted, in line with the 
views of many scholars, as utterances of the com- 
munity of Israel rather than as those of the feelings 


* While a few of the Psalms may have been composed earlier 
than the return from the Babylonian captivity (536 B.c.), most of 
them were written between that time and 165 B.c. 

™ Ps. 17:13-15: 

“Arise, O Lord, prevent him, cast him down; deliver my soul 
from the wicked, who is thy sword, 

“From these men—thy hand—O Lord, from the men of this life, 
and whose belly thou fillest with thy hidden treasure; they have 
children in plenty, and leave the rest of their substance to their 
babes. 

“As for me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall 
be satisfied, when I awake, with contemplating thy likeness.” Also 
Ps. 10 and 14. 


16 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


of individuals, the deep-seated sympathy for the 
poor and humble is seen to be even more striking. 
Israel, poor and helpless, is the victim; his rich 
and powerful neighbors are the oppressors. 

It may be said, in fact, that the Book of Psalms 
is, more than any other book in the Bible, the book 
of the poor man and of the poor people. It is 
steeped in the emotions of the destitute and helpless. 
Expressions of fellow-feeling for their hard lot, sup- 
plications for their protection and vindication, and 
exhortations to mitigate their distress are found in 
large numbers. At a time when the official direction 
of Jewish life is commonly thought to have rested 
in the hands of the aristocratic and well-to-do priest 
party (the Sadducees), the canonization of these 
pleadings for the needy and humble and the pre- 
eminence later given them in the ritual indicate con- 
clusively the strong hold they had on Jewish life and 
the controlling influence they exerted in creating 
sympathy for the social classes concerned. 

Reflecting the concern of another group of leaders 
in the unfortunate classes is the Wisdom Literature 
of the Bible, consisting of the books of Proverbs, 
Job and Ecclesiastes. These books, written between 
380 and 180 B.c., the creations of teachers, often 
laymen ‘“‘opposed to the religious and political views 
of the official priesthood,” while differing widely 
in content and spirit from one another, all appealed 
to the individual conscience and thought, and not to 
traditional or national ideals and observances. All 


THE BIBLE 17 


three abound in sympathy for the needy and the 
weak. Those that take advantage of them are re- 
buked and those who have mercy for them and re- 
lieve their misery are praised.1* Charity and hu- 
manity are exalted. ‘“‘Whoso mocketh the poor 
reproacheth his Maker” (Prov. 17:5). God is the 
champion of the poor; their cry reaches him (Job 
34:28), and He gives them their right (Job 36:6). 

The entire Bible vibrates and tingles with a quick 
and burning sympathy for the poor and the handi- 
capped. And for the Hebrew people its pages were 
not mere literature, but the recollections or impres- 
sions that had to do with experiences which had 
ploughed deep into its soul. The very beginnings 
of Israel were identified with a battle to save the 
nation from poverty, exploitation and oppression at 
the hands of their Egyptian masters, a battle that 
left a profound impress upon the consciousness of 
the Jew, making for social justice and humanitarian 
feeling and operating against the oppression of 
natives and strangers alike. As a result of these 
experiences of the Jewish people from the very 
earliest times and as a result of its deliberately con- 
ceived plan of self-education through the method of 
chronicling and canonizing its experiences, champion- 
ship of the unfortunate fell on responsive soil. Nota- 
ble episodes having to do with such championship 

™Prov. 3:27; 14:21, 313 22:16; 29:7; 30:14; 31:9. Job 20:19; 


22:6; 24:2-4, 9, 143 29 (entire chap.) ; 31:13-32; 34:28; 36:6. 
Eccles. 5:7-8; 11:1-2. 


18 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


are recorded in the Bible. Leaving unmentioned the 
utterances and activities of the writing prophets, 
already referred to, one needs but recall the severe 
criticism of anticipated royal exploitation in Samuel’s 
farewell speech, the denunciation of the extrava- 
gance of Solomon and Jeroboam, the ascription of 
Rehoboam’s rejection by Israel to his reduction of 
the common people to desperate want, and similar 
incidents. In addition, there were the actions of 
leading Biblical personalities to serve as examples 
of benefaction to be imitated—Abraham’s hospitality 
to wayfarers, Boaz’s kindness to the widow-stranger, 
the poor widow’s altrujsm in sharing her mite with 
Elijah; and there was the visualization of nobility 
of conduct in the character of Job (historic or alle- 
gorical), type of the righteous man who, among his 
other virtues, treated justly and humanely his serv- 
ants, the poor, the widow, the orphan, the wan- 
derer.1? ‘There was also the exaltation of the prac- 
tise of charity as an essential virtue of the woman 
of worth held up as an ideal of a wife in the Book 
of Proverbs.‘ ‘This chapter was read by the hus- 
band at the Sabbath Eve home service preceding the 
meal, in the later centuries. Finally, the latest festi- 
val ordained in the Bible, Purim—the Feast of 
Esther and Mordecai—was to have as an essential 


31 :13-22, 32: The fundamental principle here again is equality 
under one Maker. Cf. verse 15. 

** 31:20: “She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reach- 
eth forth her hands to the needy.” 


THE BIBLE 19 


feature of its observance “the sending of portions 
to one another, and gifts to the poor.’ 1> ‘This as- 
pect of Purim was universally cultivated in all sub- 
sequent ages. 

Of actual economic measures adopted to prevent 
poverty there are several indications. Besides the 
provisions contained in the law of the Jubilee year 
against alienation of homesteads, the law of the 
Sabbatical Year, in addition to its agricultural phases 
above referred to, also released all debtors of money 
obligations and thus served as a sort of bankruptcy 
law, permitting those in debt to have a fresh start 
every seventh year. We shall see that this law was 
later virtually evaded, but it appears to have been 
enforced throughout the Biblical era. 

We have the record of a thorough reconstruction 
of the economic life of the community according 
to a program of justice following what we in these 
days would call a survey of living conditions, by 
Nehemiah, soon after the re-establishment of the 
Second Commonwealth, and consisting of the aboli- 
tion of serfdom for debt and of landlords’ and land- 
owners’ profiteering and a redistribution of the popu- 
lation according to industrial needs.*® 

Such was the pure and powerful stream of chari- 
table ideals and ordinances and emotions which 
emanated from the Bible, and which, mingling with 
a perennial current of kindred humanitarianism, 


* Esther 9:22. 
“Neh. 521-133 11:1-36. 


20 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


swept forward to water and enrich the vast expanse 
of rabbinical life. 

In turning to the consideration of the motives 
that animated Hebrew benevolence, it is well to 
avoid the error of assuming that there is but one 
motive operating in a person at any given time. Acts 
of benevolence, like all other acts, are not the result 
of a single, detached impulse or purpose, but are 
the result of a combination of motives, seldom 
clearly formulated or even comprehended. ‘There 
are several interplaying concurrent motives, usually 
merged in a complex, leading to any given step or 
course of conduct. Side by side with the most 
altruistic impulses, there may be found selfish con- 
siderations, often unformulated and _ inarticulate. 
What may be said—and even then with the greatest 
of caution and only as the broadest sort of generali- 
zation—is that a certain motive or a certain set of 
motives may at any given period, or, better still, 
among any given group of writers and personalities, 
be the dominating one. The prophetic writings may 
thus be characterized as asserting justice to be the 
animating reason for works of charity. The sanc- 
tion for justice itself is the Will of God: 1* ‘Thus 
saith the Lord.” Prosperity and happiness are de- 
scribed as the reward of obeying the will of God, 

“The will of God, as the ultimate reason for human goodness, 


derives its value from His ethical nature.” Moritz Lazarus: 
Ethics of Judaism, Vol. I, Ch. 2, Sec. 83. 


THE BIBLE 21 


though these are not directly held up as considera- 
tions for beneficence and never obscure the worth 
of doing right for its own sake. The Deuteronomic 
legislation and exhortations appealed more to the 
humanitarian motive, though they held out, at the 
same time, a reward of long life and prosperity. 
In the Psalms, the impulses invoked are pity for 
the poor as wronged ones and justice to them as the 
special protégés of God. Rewards are offered in 
the shape of ultimate prosperity, but communion with 
God, was, nevertheless, considered sufficient. ‘The 
Book of Proverbs appeals to enlightened self- 
interest. Humanitarian and fraternal considerations 
seem to govern Job’s feelings. 

On the whole, it may be said that, in the attempt 
to induce men to be charitable, the writings of the 
prophets appealed to the highest ethical motives; 
the Book of Deuteronomy gave philanthropy the 
deepest emotional touch; the Psalms invoked aid to 
the distressed on the most fervent religious grounds, 
and the Wisdom Literature met the demand of the 
most practical utilitarianism. Everywhere the love 
of one’s fellowmen ?* as brothers of the same pa- 
ternity—God—ran alongside as a concurrent de- 
termining force. ‘The penitential motive—righteous- 
ness for the sake of salvation in the hereafter—did 
not yet figure. 

What, then, did the Biblical period and its chief 


*<«“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Lev. 19:18. 


22 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


creation, the Holy Scriptures, have to pass down to 
the subsequent generations, in the way of philan- 
thropic teaching and action? First of all, a warm, 
glowing feeling for charitable deed, which amounted 
almost to a passion. In pointing out that “‘the Leviti- 
cal law first applied a new standard to social life” 
through its injunction ‘“Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself’? (Lev. 19:18), Charles Stuart Loch de- 
clared: ‘This thought is the outcome of a deep 
ethical fervor—the element which the Jews brought 
into the work of charity.’ 1® In his ‘Christian 
Charity in the Ancient Church” Uhlhorn erred when 
he assumed throughout his book ?° that there was 
no element of love in charity until the advent of 
Christianity. The long and distinguished record of 
Christianity in the field of redeeming love, even 
after due deduction has been made for the pauperi- 
zation brought about by the monastic system com- 
plained of by Lecky 7! and others, can stand on its 
own merits and does not need the glory belonging 
to an older religion—that of being the first, to imbue 
benevolence with love. 

Secondly, it was the Jewish Biblical law that first 
made charity a human obligation incumbent on every 
person.22. While the amount of much—no doubt 
most—of the benevolence enjoined was left to the 


* “Charity and Charities,” in Encyclopedia Britannica. 


® See particularly pp. 7-9, 39 f. 

™ History of European Morals, Ch. 4. 

* Kohler: “The Historical Development of Jewish Charity,” in 
Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses, p. 230. 


THE BIBLE 23 


conscience of each individual in the form of mo- 
nitions, the giving of the elements of subsistence 
was made compulsory through legislation. 

Thirdly, definite measures of relief of those in 
want and regulations of a preventive nature were 
evolved and set into motion. The scheme was frag- 
mentary and the action, except for the enforcement 
phase, was a duty laid upon individuals acting 
severally and not collectively. Yet a clearly defined, 
tangible set of obligatory contributions was present, 
although in embryonic state, and it formed a skeleton 
for a more complete body of obligatory charity in 
later ages. 

Fourthly, during this period there was made clear 
for all time the chief, the basic causes of poverty 
and misery, namely, economic maladjustment and 
injustice due to human greed. This was the special 
contribution of the great prophets, although the 
Psalmists and law-makers and seers had a share in 
the great work. We are not surprised at Philo’s 
glowing laudation of the charity injunctions in the 
Pentateuch which he gives in the course of his sum- 
mary and elaboration of the humanitarian laws of 
the Pentateuch.?? ‘The benefits extended by these 
regulations are, in the interpretation of this cultured 
Jew, who in his person and thought blended the 
noblest of Hebrew and Greek civilization of the time 
(end of first century B.c. and first half of first cen- 


* Cf. his On Humanity, C. D. Yonge’s translation, Vol. III, p. . 
423-453. 


24 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


tury A.D.), not limited to Hebrews; at least, Philo’s 
own sympathies are all-inclusive. 


The Biblical period did not develop a comprehen- 
sive system of philanthropy, in our modern mean- 
ing of the word, but it had in it the germ for such a 
system. It exercised a profound, yes, a determining 
influence on all future Jewish benevolent thought 
and endeavor. It was the main current in the stream 
of Jewish charity and thereby helped water the soil 
of kindness and uplift among humankind generally. 


CHAPTER II 
THE APOCRYPHA 


IN the literature of the Apocrypha, which was 
written during the period immediately following the 
close of the Bible canon, there are two books which 
devote special attention to the doing of charity. 
They differ diametrically from one another. Ec- 
clesiasticus, the work of Ben Sira, belongs to the 
Wisdom Literature. ‘Tobit is a religious tale deal- 
ing with the tribulations of a righteous couple. 

Ben Sira has several observations on beneficence 
and loving-kindness of the same pattern as those 
found in the Bible, particularly the book of Proy- 
erbs. Here is a passage appealing to the human 
sympathies of the strong in behalf of the weak and 
also charging him in the spirit of the prophets not 
to exploit the poor nor to permit the latter to be 
wronged in judicial litigation (4: 1-6, 8-10) : 

My son, defraud not the poor of his living, and make 
not the needy eyes to wait long. 

Make not an hungry soul sorrowful; neither provoke a 
man in his distress. 

Add not more trouble to an heart that is vexed; and defer 
not to give to him that is in need. 

Reject not the supplication of the afflicted; neither turn 
away thy face from a poor man. 


29 


26 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Turn not away thine eye from the needy, and give him 
no occasion to curse thee: 

For if he curse thee in the bitterness of his soul, his 
prayer shall be heard of Him that made him. 

Let it not grieve thee to bow down thine ear to the poor, 
and give him a friendly answer with meekness. 

Deliver him that suffereth wrong from the hand of the 
oppressor; and be not faint-hearted when thou sittest in 
judgment. 

Be a father unto the fatherless, and instead of an hus- 
band unto their mother: so shalt thou be as the son of the 
Most High, and he shall love thee more than thy mother 
doth. 


Injustice to the poor is denounced in still more 
drastic terms in the following lines. Robbery of 
the needy cannot be atoned for by gifts to religion 
(34:20-22)-% 

Whoso bringeth an offering of the goods of the poor doeth 
as one that killeth the son before his father’s eyes. 

The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth 
him thereof is a man of blood. 

He that taketh away his neighbour’s living slayeth him; 
and he that defraudeth the labourer of his hire is a blood- 
shedder. 


In the next passage obedience to God’s command- 
ments and resultant prosperity are emphasized as 
the motives for beneficence. It would seem that 
the rewards are those of this world (29:9-10, 
12-13): 

Help the poor for the commandment’s sake, and turn 
him not away because of his poverty. 


THE APOCRYPHA 27 


Lose thy money for thy brother and thy friend, and let it 
not rust under a stone to be lost. 

Shut up alms in thy storehouses: and it shall deliver thee 
from all affliction. 

It shall fight for thee against thine enemies better than a 
mighty shield and strong spear. 


Ben Sira charges the reader to withhold charity 
from the ungodly, lest it strengthen him in his re- 
sources to do evil (12:1-7): 

He takes a fling at miserliness, thus (14:3) : 


Riches are not comely for a niggard: and what should 
an envious man do with money? 


He believes there is a standing warfare between 
the rich and the poor (13:18-20). 

He grows sarcastic about the deference shown 
the rich and the belittling of the poor, thus 
(32 2-29')': 

When a rich man is fallen, he hath many helpers: he 
speaketh things not to be spoken, and yet men justify him: 
the poor man slipped, and yet they rebuked him too; he spake 
wisely, and could have no place. 

When a rich man speaketh, every man holdeth his tongue, 
and, look what he saith, they extol it to the clouds: but if 
the poor man speak, they say, What fellow is this? and if he 
stumble, they will help to overthrow him. 


He appeals to the pride and self-respect of the 
needy not to make use of the grudging hospitality 
and loans of patrons. He exhibits a fine insight into 
human nature of both beneficiaries and benefactors 


(29:24-18): 


28 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


For it is a miserable life to go from house to house: for 
where thou art a stranger, thou darest not open thy mouth. 

Thou shalt entertain, and feast, and have no thanks: 
moreover thou shalt hear bitter words: 

Come, thou stranger, and furnish a table, and feed me 
of that thou hast ready. 

Give place, thou stranger, to an honorable man; my 
brother cometh to be lodged, and I have need of mine house. 

These things are grievous to a man of understanding; the 
upbraiding of house-room, and reproaching of the lender. 

In a kindly spirit, again appealing to the basic 
human sympathies and suggesting the more spiritual 
rewards, he calls for charity, acts of consolation for 
those who sorrow and mourn, and friendly visiting 
of the sick (7:32-35): 

And stretch thine hand unto the poor, that thy blessing 
may be perfected. 

A gift hath grace in the sight of every man living; and 
for the dead detain it not. 

Fail not to be with them that weep, and mourn with 
them that mourn. 


Be not slow to visit the sick: for that shall make thee to 
be beloved. 


The Book of Tobit shows an entirely different 
trend of thought. It attaches extraordinary im- 
portance to alms-giving and to acts of kindness in 
connection with burial and acclaims these as chief 
virtues. Such acts avert evils and yield prosperity. 
The doctrine of merit through- good works has 
already attained a dominant position here. This 
development must have taken place in the wake of 
the wholesale suffering and slaughter that befell 


THE APOCRYPHA 29 


the people in the Maccabean wars. A few verses 
from the admonition given by Tobit to his son will 
suffice, as they are characteristic of the entire book, 
which dwells on almsgiving repeatedly (4:7-10) : 

Give alms of thy substance; and when thou givest alms, 
let not thine eye be envious, neither turn thy face from any 
poor, and the face of God shall not be turned away from 
thee. 

If thou hast abundance, give alms accordingly: if thou 
have but a little, be not afraid to give according to that 
little: 

For thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the 
day of necessity. 

Because that alms do deliver from death, and suffereth 
not to come into darkness. 


It is to be noted that the doctrine of merit, while 
already appearing as a powerful motive, avoids the 
crude assertion of precise relation between virtue 
and reward. For though Tobit, like Job, is eventu- 
ally restored to happiness, nevertheless the heroes 
of both these tales suffer great tribulations, despite 
their piety and righteousness. ‘Their merit, there- 
fore, flows out of their persistence in virtue even 
when virtue does not pay, although in the end, 
contrary to expectation, it is recognized and re- 
warded. 

It is also interesting to note the change in the 
meaning of the word ‘‘Zedakah.” In Proverbs, this 
word signifies “righteousness,” and this is the mean- 
ing it has in the phrase “Righteousness delivers 
from death’ (10:2 and 11:4). But in Tobit 


30 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Zedakah has come to be identified with ‘“‘almsgiv- 
ing,” and is so used in the same phrase “Almsgiy- 
ing delivers from death.” ‘This transition in a sense 
narrows the maxim of Proverbs, but it at the same 
time discloses the tendency to make practical ap- 
plication of a general moral rule. 

We see also the growing conception of the aton- 
ing power of almsgiving.! This conception later on 
played a great part in the doctrine of atonement. 
It found expression in the formula, “Repentance, 
Prayer and Charity avert the evil decree,” recited 
in the liturgy of the New Year and the Day of 
Atonement as a leading belief of popular theology. 
Associated with this belief was the regular collec- 
tion of alms on fast days which became a standing 
feature of Jewish charitable organization. In rep- 
resenting Jesus as denouncing the public distribution 
of alms as evidence of a love for displaying one’s 
virtue, Matthew (6:1-2) erroneously associated the 
blowing of the trumpet with the collection of alms. 
The blowing of the trumpet was part of the public 
ceremony of repentance on fast days called at times 
of drought. The distribution of alms on those oc- 
casions constituted a practical exercise in mercy. 
At all other times charity was distributed with 
special safeguards against publicity.? 

*“Prayer is good with fasting and alms and righteousness.” 
Tobit, 12:8. “Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh 
an atonement for sins.” Ben Sira, 3:30. 


*Cf. C. G. Montefiore: Synoptic Gospels, Vol. 2, pp. 530-532, 
Macmillan Co., London, 1909. 


CHAPTER III 


THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE AND COM- 
MUNAL CHARITY ORGANIZATION 


THE liberation from Greco-Syrian rule achieved 
by the Maccabees and their followers (165-142 
B.C.) brought along in its train an increased de- 
votion to the Jewish religion. The preservation 
of Judaism had been the predominant motive in 
the valiant fight put up by the Jews. The Bible 
emerged from the issue with a new distinction—as 
a precious possession that had been imperilled. 
Many books that had become endeared as religious 
literature were now declared sacred. 

The canonization of the third and last section 
of the Hebrew Scriptures—the Kethubim or Holy 
Writings—at about 160 B.c., rendered the Bible 
the ultimate authority on all matters, civil and re- 
ligious, in Jewish life. It became the constitution 
of the Jewish people, the text-book and source of 
all doctrine and conduct. 

The adoption of the Bible as the supreme law in 
Jewish life tended to increase the importance of 
the synagogues as centers of religious and social 
activity by providing a medium of instruction at 

31 


32 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


these places of meeting and common worship. The 
synagogue, which had sprung up in Babylonia in 
the sixth century, B.c., during the period of the 
Exile, when the Temple at Jerusalem lay in ruins, 
soon became a permanent institution, at first found 
only in large centers of population, both in the 
restored Second Commonwealth and outside of 
Palestine, and later on everywhere, even in the very 
smallest communities. Synagogues arose in Jeru- 
salem itself, alongside of the Temple. Everywhere 
they answered the daily spiritual needs of the people 
as seats of worship and instruction and as centers 
of communal activity. The Temple at Jerusalem 
remained the great national shrine, where public 
worship and the sacrificial cult were maintained with 
pomp and circumstance, and to which pilgrimages 
were made. In at least two cases known to us, 
settlements far away from Jerusalem (one in Ele- 
phantine in Upper Egypt, the other in Leontopolis, 
in Lower Egypt), had disregarded the prohibition 
laid down in Deuteronomy against the offering of 
sacrifices in any other place than the national sanc- 
tuary. To the establishment of synagogues, how- 
ever, there was no Biblical objection. Synagogues 
began as religious agencies supplementary to the 
Temple, but, as their usefulness grew, they drew to 
themselves more and more the allegiance and the 
support both of the common people and of the 
scholarly elements. It is likely that by the middle 
of the second century, B.c., they were the recognized 


THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 33 


communal centers for worship, learning and as- 
sembly. 

Since we shall presently advance the view that 
the beginnings of organized Jewish relief are closely 
associated with the rise and spread of synagogues, 
mention may be made at this point of the earliest 
instances of these institutions substantiated by his- 
torical records. 

There was a synagogue at Schedia, near Alexan- 
dria, dedicated to Ptolemy III, Euergetes (247-222 
By): 

In the latter half of the second century, B.c., a 
synagogue existed in Xenephyris, in the Delta region 
of Egypt. An inscription, engraved in Greek on a 
block of marble, found in 1912, reads: ‘In honor 
of King Ptolemy and of the Queen Cleopatra, his 
sister, and of the Queen Cleopatra, his wife, the 
Jews of Xenephyris (have consecrated) the portal 
of the Synagogue, the presidents being Theodorus 
and Achillion.” ‘The reference here is to Ptolemy 
Physcon, and the date of the inscription falls be- 
tween 143 and 117 B.c., probably nearer to 143.” 

We have records of several other Egyptian syna- 
gogues extant in the second and first centuries, B.c.® 


*Samuel Krauss: Synagogale Altertiimer, Berlin and Vienna, 
1922, p. 263; Emil Schirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes, Ul, 


P- 499- 
7 Joseph Offord: “A New Inscription Concerning the Jews in 
Egypt.” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, Jan., 


1914, PP. 45-46. 
* Krauss, op. cit., pp. 263-265; Schiirer, loc. cit. 


34 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


In 1914, the remains of a synagogue were dis- 
covered at Jerusalem, in the course of excavations 
on Mount Ophel. This synagogue, according to 
Prof. Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, was built sometime 
during the Herodian period (37 B.c.-66 A.D.), more 
probably about 10 B.c., either to replace or to sup- 
plement an original structure extant when Pompey 
captured Jerusalem in 63 B.c.* 

There was a famous synagogue in Alexan- 
dria extant at this time, which we shall refer to 
presently. 

Josephus and the New Testament speak of syna- 
gogues frequently, treating them as fixtures in 
Jewish life. According to Schirer,> who made an 
intensive study of this period, there were syna- 
gogues in every Jewish community in Palestine, 
Egypt, Asia Minor and Greece, Italy and Africa. 
Even the smallest town had one, and there were 
several in Jerusalem, Rome and other large 
centers. 

It was around the synagogues that public relief 
sprang up. Already in the Temple itself, according 
to an old, carefully preserved rabbinical source, 

* Stanley A. Cook: “The Synagogue of Theodotos at Jerusalem,” 
Palestine Exploration Fund, Monthly Statement, Jan., 1921, p. 23; 
Gerald M. Fitz-Gerald: “Notes on Recent Discoveries,” ibid., 
Oct., 1921, p. 181; Clermont-Ganneau: Découverte a Jérusalem 
d’une Synagogue de l’Epoque Hérodienne in Syria, Vol. I (1921), p. 
nt ere cit. II, 497 f. Krauss, in the work cited, also has a com- 


prehensive summary of the spread of synagogues in these centuries. 
Ch. III, pp. 199-267. 


THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 35 


there was a room, the Lishkat Chashaim © (‘‘Cham- 
ber of Whispers or Silence’), where the pious, 
unobserved, left donations for the respectable poor. 

But the synagogues, being local institutions, where 
the needs of neighborhoods or of groups received 
more attention than at the national sanctuary and 
where laymen enjoyed special opportunity to par- 
ticipate in all activities, developed, naturally, into 
agencies that provided for the wants of the poor, 
the dependent and the stranger. The need of co- 
ordinating the assistance granted various individuals 
and of having them attended to by some person or 
persons who stood out as representative of the 
public must have been felt in all of the growing 
communities. The emergence of a new type of 
institution in the form of the synagogue, while pri- 
marily meant to meet a religious and educational 
demand, at the same time answered certain social 
desiderata, among them an instrumentality for the 
collection and distribution of food and clothing for 
those in want and for the provision of shelter for 
the stranger. Data are still wanting to permit us 
to speak with absolute assurance of the social wel- 
fare services rendered by the synagogues at any 
given time during the three centuries preceding the 
common era. But we have one very old record re- 
ferring to the large synagogue-——the Basilica—in 

*Mishnah Shekalim 5:6: “The God-fearing left donations there, 


unobserved and the godly poor provided themselves there, un- 
observed.” 


36 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Alexandria, which indicates that new-comers in that 
community found opportunities for affiliation in 
crafts and guilds through the medium of that in- 
stitution. In this edifice, our record informs us, the 
people were grouped according to their crafts and 
occupations ‘‘in order that, in case a stranger came, 
he might join his craft. And thence came his livelli- 
hood.’ 7 It is not known when this synagogue, the 
cathedral congregation of that populous old Jewish 
community, was founded. It must have been extant 
in the second century, B.c., and probably earlier. 
It was destroyed, according to one version of this 
old description, by Trajan in 116 A.D. 

If economic opportunities were to be had in 
synagogues, shelter, food and raiment for those in 
need were surely offered there. We have a record, 
again undated, but very old, which makes it clear 
that the ancient synagogues were used as places of 
shelter and sustenance for wayfarers. It is found 
in the tractate Pesachim in connection with a dis- 
cussion concerning the recital of the Sanctification 
of the Sabbath wine and bread. ‘‘Why should Kid- 
dush be said in the synagogue? In order to give 
strangers who ate, drank and slept in the synagogue 
an opportunity to discharge their religious duty.” ® 
And we have indisputable historical evidence of at 

"kede sheyehe aksenoi ba umittattel letimanaso umisham hayesah 
parnaso yozeah. ‘Tosephta IV 5. Zuckermandel edit., p. 198. 
German translation and other recensions given in S. Krauss: Syn. 


Alt., pp. 261-263. 
*ro1 a. 


THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 37 


least one synagogue which offered shelter to way- 
farers in the Herodian era.® 

Excavations of ancient synagogue sites are still 
in their infancy, but the few records already found 
and the fact of the existence of a long-established 
system of public relief centering around the syna- 
gogues a little over a century later (antedating for 
some time the codification of the Mishnah, c. 200 
A.D.), and having its counterpart in the earliest 
Christian churches, warrant the conclusion that or- 
ganized public relief, in connection with the activities 
of the synagogue, arose during the period between 
the closing of the Bible canon and the political dis- 
ruption of the Jewish state. 

We are inclined to accept with Lehmann ?° the 
report of the Tosephta that each city had a place 
corresponding to the Chamber of Silence in the 
Temple, where donations were left and taken un- 
observed, and to assume that this place was in the 
principal synagogue. From some such fragmentary 
provisions, measures of relief of a systematic nature 
sprang up, although we are at present still in the 
dark as to their precise nature, just as we are simi- 
larly uninformed as to the date of their first 
emergence. 

Concerning at least one aspect of aid administered 
by the synagogue in those days, there is some cer- 

*See page 38 f. 

* Joseph Lehmann: “Assistance publique et privée d’aprés |’an- 


tique Législation juive,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 35 (1897), 
Appendix, p. xxii. 


38 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


tainty. Shelter, as well as food, no doubt, was sup- 
plied to strangers. The Greek inscription belonging 
to the synagogue (reeonstructed c. 10 B.c.), found 
on Mount Ophel in Jerusalem and referred to 
above, mentions a hostel as one of its features. The 
translation, as given by Clermont-Ganneau and ren- 
dered from the French into English by Stanley A. 
Cook, reads: ‘“Theodotos, son of Vettenos, priest 
and chief of the synagogue, grandson of the chief 
of the synagogue, built this synagogue for the read- 
ing of the law and for the teaching of the command- 
ments, and also this hostel with its chambers and 
water-fittings for the need of those who, coming 
from the outside, have lodged there; (an establish- 
ment) founded (of old) by his fathers and by the 
elders and by Simonides.”’ #4 

Commenting on the Theodotos inscription, 
Gerald M. Fitz-Gerald declares: ‘‘This is not 
the only instance of a hostel in close connection 
with a synagogue. In some cases the hostel was 
perhaps on the ground floor with the synagogue 
above.”’ 1” 

This function of the early synagogues, as of the 
later, as places of hospitality, tallies with their 
accredited character in rabbinical literature as seats 
of social welfare, of charity for strangers and the 
homeless, for the sick and the needy. Perhaps the 

“Stanley A. Cook, loc. cit. 


“Loc. cit. Cf. also A. Marmorstein: “The Inscription of Theod- 
otos,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Jan., 1921, pp. 23-28. 


THE EARLY SYNAGOGUE 39 


nysy or upper chambers, attached to the synagogues, 
were designed for these uses. 

It is uncertain whether, during the early stages 
of the evolution of the synagogue, the president 
(Rosh Ha-keneset npsan wen, apxeovvdywyos, archi- 
synagogus) had charge of relief measures or a 
special official acted. But if not at the beginning, 
then very soon thereafter there appeared spe- 
cial administrators of charity (Gabbai Zedakah 
mpwy x22), who had no connection with wor- 
ship.1? They served without remuneration. Their 
position was one of such honor that members of 
priestly families might marry into the families of 
the charity administrators without the need of any 
certification on the part of the latter. This Hebrew 
name is the one the administrators of charity most 
commonly bore thereafter. In some communities 
in the Orient and the Occident, their appellation 
was that of Parnas (psp Provider or Sustainer), 
a title used also in many places to designate the presi- 
dent or a supervising trustee of a congregation." 
The appointment of special charity officers was 

* Schiirer, of. cit., p. 509 f. 

“In the Babylonian Talmud and the Codes, they are as a rule 
called Gabbai; in the Jerusalem Talmud, Parnas. Thus in the 
latter, Rabbi Akiba (50-132 a.D.) is referred to as Parnas, and so 
too several of his contemporaries. Peah 6:6-8. In the communi- 
ties of Egypt during the tenth and eleventh centuries the same title 
is used. Jacob Mann: The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under 
the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 vols., Oxford University Press, 1920-1922, 
Vol. I, p. 259. So also still later in Rome in the 16th and 17th 


centuries. Vogelstein and Rieger: Gesch. der Juden in Rom, Ber- 
lin, 1896, Vol. 2, p. 129. 


40 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


probably due to the necessity for a division of labor 
in the larger communities but these officers always 
worked hand in hand with the president of the con- 
gregation or under his guidance. 

The congregational basis and form of organized 
relief was taken over by the Christian churches 
when these separated from the Jewish community. 
The Christian deacons and presbyters in their ca- 
pacity of supervisors and dispensers of charity 
corresponded to the Jewish Parnasim (Providers) 
and Gabbaim (Treasurers or Dispensers). The 
Church even took over bodily the ecclesiastical tithe 
and collected it, whereas the Synagogue, after the 
fall of the state, contented itself with keeping it 
on its books as suspended legislation, to be enforced 
again when Palestine would be restored to the 
Jewish people. 

Meanwhile organized Jewish charity kept on de- 
veloping. In the next period we find it in a com- 
paratively advanced stage of evolution. 


PART TWO 


FROM THE FALL OF THE STATE TO THE BEGINNINGS 
OF EMANCIPATION 





CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTORY 


Tue fall of the state in 70 A.D. changed pro- 
foundly the conditions of Jewish life. From that 
time on, and until the era of emancipation which, 
broadly speaking, set in with the French Revolution, 
the Jews were not the final arbiters of their own 
destinies. The ultimate determination of their 
economic and social condition was in the hands of 
their political masters, civil or ecclesiastical, as the 
case might be. Whether they lived in Asia, in 
Africa or in Europe; whether their overlords were 
Mohammedans or Christians, they were regarded 
as a special class, distinct from the rest of the popu- 
lation and subject to special laws. 

Left without political unity of their own and not 
permitted to assimilate with their neighbors, their 
traditional Law, with the Bible as its heart, became 
all the more cherished. It stood forth as the one 
great bond that united them. Academies arose and 
scholars multiplied, in order to preserve and ex- 
pound the Law and its accumulated interpretations. 
Rabbinical law, accordingly, grew by leaps and 
bounds. It attained great prestige and carried great 
weight. 

43 


44 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


The very exclusion of the Jews from the political 
life of the states in which they lived gave an open- 
ing for the rabbinical law to serve as the law of 
Jewish life, secular and religious. For, while Jew- 
ish life was circumscribed and restricted in re- 
lation to the general population and, subject to 
continual disturbance from the outside, as de- 
scribed, within those narrow confines it was sub- 
stantially self-directed. “The governments under 
which they lived interfered but rarely in the internal 
life of the Jews, finding it to their advantage to 
let them manage their own affairs, and to deal with 
the community as a whole in matters of taxation, 
restrictions and privileges.1 With the discontinu- 
ance of the Sanhedrin, the last surviving legislative 
and judicial organ, rabbinical law became the su- 
preme authority in Jewish life and was recognized 
by the government and given the backing of the 
state. Henceforth and up to the era of modern 
emancipation, the jurisdiction of the rabbinical law 
was undisputed, its sway extending both over secular 
and religious affairs. [oa people as devoted to the 
classic period of their past as the Jews were, who 
loved their religious treasures—literature, customs, 
institutions, precepts—so passionately, the permis- 
sion to use their own organic law as their governing 
code came as a blessing and served as a compensa- 
tion for all misfortune. And, more than that, the 


*Israel Abrahams: Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Phila., Jew- 
ish Publication Society, 1911, Chap. 3 (Communal Organization). 


INTRODUCTORY 45 


observance of the same law everywhere brought 
about a remarkable unity and uniformity in Jewish 
life, no matter how far apart the communities might 
be, and no matter under what dominion. The word 
‘law’ does not really cover the case. We mean 
not only law in the strict sense, but also the whole 
mass of doctrine, precepts, ideals and usages elabo- 
rated by the post-Biblical religious authorities. 
The rabbinical laws and regulations concerning 
charity and relief, like those bearing on other as- 
pects of existence, had for their heart the legislation 
and ideals and standards of the Bible. Around 
these latter the rabbis of the Talmud and their 
successors built the superstructure of their teach- 
ings. The decisions of the learned bodies in the 
Palestinian and Babylonian academies? and the 
opinions of individual teachers of distinction re- 
corded in the Talmud (the former having the force 
of law and the latter of revered instruction) ; the 
enactments of local and district councils, carrying 
compulsion in the territories over which they exer- 
cised jurisdiction and conviction in other regions; 
the precepts of eminent teachers like Maimonides 
and Jacob ben Asher and Joseph Caro, embodied 
in their monumental literary works; the decisions 
(Teshubot) of learned rabbis in answer to questions 
addressed to them by communities and individuals; 
?The leading academies of Palestine were Jabneh, Usha, Sep- 


phoris and Tiberias, while the main seats of learning in Baby- 
lonia were at Nehardea, Sura, Pumbedita and Machuza. 


46 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


and the ethical and homiletical dicta of authors on 
religious themes stretching from the close of the 
Bible to the era of secularism ushered in by Moses 
Mendelssohn—all these were in the nature, not 
of displacement of the Biblical doctrine, but of 
elaboration and supplementation. ‘The new ma: 
terial, rising to the noble heights of philosophic 
abstraction and ethical idealism in the hands of a 
Maimonides, and sinking to the level of involved 
legalism and hair-splitting casuistry in the hands 
of certain inferior writers, never obscured for them 
the beauty and the inspiration of the original Bible 
sources, nor rendered tnem less receptive to the 
influences of Israel’s experiences during his early 
classic, creative days. It was in fact the rich reser- 
voir of humanitarian and ethical ordinance and 
sentiment, accumulated during centuries of un- 
paralleled outer and inner experiences preceding the 
era we are surveying, that supplied both the mo- 
mentum and the plan for the unbroken chain of 
philanthropic ideals and endeavors, forged during 
the subsequent generations. The very pre-eminence 
of the Biblical doctrine insured its immortality in 
the rabbinical era. 

The supreme authority vested in the Law and 
its accredited elaborations tended to cast all legisla- 
tion into fixed molds and to circumscribe freedom 
of inventiveness so far as the general outlines of 
personal and communal procedure were concerned. 
But within these general molds much latitude was 


INTRODUCTORY 47 


permitted. Real rigidity did not set in until the 
codification of the Talmud (c.500 a.p.). Even 
then, eminent teachers permitted themselves to 
differ from the traditional rulings. And, side by 
side with the legalistic material there issued from 
the mouths of sages and homilists a mass of instruc- 
tion which took the form of episode and aphorism. 
Life, with its demands and its experiences, always 
independent of previously created molds, instituted 
its own norms as it needed them. 


CHAPTER II 
THE TALMUD 


WHEN the interpretations and elaborations of 
Scripture reached a stage where they could not, on 
account of the quantity of material accumulated and 
because of the inaccuracy of human memory, pro- 
ceed any further by way of oral transmission, the 
decisions of the rabbinical academies and of the 
more notable teachers were assembled and edited 
by Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Jehudah Ha-Nasi in the 
Mishnah (c. 200 aA.D.). The Mishnah contains 
utterances and enactments extending as far back 
as 200 or 250 B.c. Its contents are, for the most 
part, legal in form. There are some ethical por- 
tions of a high order, like the Pirke Abot, com- 
monly known as the “Ethics of the Fathers.” 

Towards the end of the treatise ‘‘Peah,’’ where 
the regulations concerning the corners of the field 
(observed only theoretically since the fall of the 
state) are elaborated, we find the outlines of a sys. 
tem of organized relief enacted into law and, to 
all appearances, treated as an old and long-estab- 
lished part of the social order, as, indeed, it was. 

Herewith is a translation of this important 
Mishnaic source, cited in its entirety. 

48 


THE TALMUD 49 


Chapter 8, Paragraph 7: “A poor man should 
not be given less than a Kikkar (of food), which 
sells for a Pundyon, when wheat sells four seahs 
for a Sela. If he spends the night, he should be 
provided with the expenses of lodging. If he spends 
the Sabbath, he should be given food for three 
meals. Whoever has food for two meals should 
not take anything from the community plate (‘non 
Tamchui). If he has food for fourteen meals, he 
should not take anything from the community chest 
(npyp Kuppah). ‘The Kuppah is collected by two 
persons and distributed by three. 

(Paragraph 8) ‘“‘Whoever has two hundred 
(200) Zuz should not take of gleanings, forgotten 
sheaves, corners of the field and tithes for the 
poor. If he has two hundred (200) less one dinar, 
even if he be given one thousand (1,000) Zuz in 
one gift, he may take. If (these two hundred Zuz)- 
are pledged to a debtor or as a marriage dower, 
he may take. He cannot be compelled to sell his 
house or his utensils.1 

(Paragraph 9) ‘Whosoever has fifty (50) Zuz 
and does business therewith should not accept 
charity. And whoever does not need to take and 
does take shall come to want at the hands of man 
before he departs from the world. And whoever 
needs to take and does not take,? shall not die of 

*This refers to accepting aid from private sources, not from 


the public funds. 
*JI.e., manages to get along without it. 


50 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


old age until he shall have supported others out of 
his own means. And concerning him Scripture says: 
‘Blessed be the man who trusts in the Lord; the 
Lord will be his refuge.’ * And the same is the case 
with a judge who executes true justice to his fellow- 
man. And whoever does not limp on one foot, is 
not blind, or lame on both feet, and passes off as 
such, will not die of old age until he be like one of 
them, as Scripture says: ‘But he that searches for 
evil, it shall come upon him,’ * and ‘Justice, justice 
shalt thou pursue.’® And every judge who takes 
bribes and sets aside justice shall not die of old age 
before his eyes are dimmed, as Scripture says: ‘And 
thou shalt take no bribe, for a bribe blindeth them 
that have sight.’ ”’ ® 

This passage gives a fair indication of the lines 
of development taken by Jewish philanthropy since 
Bible days. Private charity and public charity were 
found existing side by side. Public charity had be- 
come systematized, and now had two funds, a daily 
collection (plate or basket) and a weekly collection 
(chest). The workings of these will be described 
later. [here were charity administrators, the num- 
ber of whom was fixed. Their specific functions and 
qualifications will also be dwelt on later. Fixed 
standards were set, to indicate the minimum of 

‘Jer. 17:7. 

*Prov. 11:27. 


* Deut. 16:20. 
Pex. 2438. 


THE TALMUD 51 


relief allowed to transients. We shall see later that 
local poor were to be provided for according to 
their needs. Standards were also set to ensure self- 
support and prevent pauperization of the applicants 
for relief. 

The taking of charity was not held up, as in the 
medieval church and in the system of Buddha, as 
an ideal.. Imposition was forbidden. The dominant 
motive appealed to was long life and prosperity 
in return for obedience, in contrast with troubled 
years in return for disobedience, all under divine 
dispensation. Motives of altruism were not men- 
tioned here, although they always, as we shall see, 
existed, alongside of the more utilitarian appeals. 
Neither was the reward of salvation in the life to 
come used here, although the Mishnah already 
used freely the appeal of the future life, employing 
it, indeed, in the very first paragraph of this book 
Peah, where it says: ‘These are the things, the 
fruits of which one enjoys in this life and the capital 
of which holds over for him in the world to come: 
Honoring of parents, deeds of loving-kindness and 
the promotion of peace between a man and his 
neighbor. But the study of the Law excels them 
eid 

There is a section corresponding to this passage 
from the Mishnah in the Tosephta,® which is a col- 
lection of legal decisions and observations not in- 


7Mishnah Peah 1:1. 
*Tosephta Peah 4:8-21 (Zuckermandel edition, pp. 23-25). 


52 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


corporated in Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi’s compilation. 
Most of this section from the Tosephta, as is true 
of this compilation generally, consists of remnants 
from compilations earlier than the Mishnah, but 
it also contains some later additions. It is difficult 
to fix the date of each unit. But the Tosephta pas- 
sage discloses the system of early relief as much 
more elaborately developed than the Mishnah’s 
briefer account suggests. Since the chief portions 
of this passage are quoted in various places in the 
Gemara (which will be treated presently) we shall 
not cite it in extenso but merely call attention to 
those points which represent substantial differences 
from the Mishnah passages or important additions 
thereto. ‘The problem of the professional beggar 
was already then an acute one. The rule is here 
laid down: ‘There is no obligation towards those 
who beg from door to door,” but this recommended 
unconcern did not meet with favor and the rule was 
never accepted. We shall see that Maimonides 
in his codification of the law requires that something 
shall be given to the beggar. ‘The subsequent 
codists follow Maimonides. 

The purposes of the two funds, the time of dis- 
tribution and the degree of obligation devolving 
on length of residence, are clearly stated. The duty 
to keep in mind the accustomed social status of the 
needy in the giving of relief is strongly insisted 
upon. It is urged to disguise charity as a loan or 
gift in the case of proud poor and to resort to a 


THE TALMUD 53 


ruse, if necessary, to persuade misers to support 
themselves properly. ‘The charity collectors are 
cautioned to avoid exposing themselves to sus- 
picion. High intention and noble motive are em- 
phasized, the story of King Monobaz ® being used 
as an illustration. Personal service is lauded, un- 
charitableness classed in the same category of sins 
as idolatry. Charity and personal service are de- 
clared to serve as an intercessory force between 
Israel and God. 

The Mishnah, representing the codification of 
the Oral Law, now became the text of the acade- 
mies. When, in the course of many generations, the 
dicta and the agenda of the doctors of the law be- 
gan to assume vast proportions and were in danger 
of being confused or even lost, these and the dis- 
cussions that went with them were edited as the 
Gemara. The two component parts took shape as 
the Talmud, the Mishnah appearing as text, and 
the Gemara as running commentary. The Talmud 
consists, in reality, of two distinct works: (1) The 
Jerusalem ‘Talmud, the product of Palestinian 
teachers, concluded approximately by 350 B.c., and 
(2) the Babylonian Talmud, the product of Baby- 
lonian teachers, finished and edited approximately 
s00 AD. The Babylonian Talmud is by far the 
larger of the two. It contains teachings, legal 
opinions and narratives of rabbinical leaders, dating 
from 250 B.c. to 500 AD. This is the Talmud 


*See below, p. 57. 


54 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


commonly meant when the word “Talmud” is used 
without any other appellation. 

The decisions of the Talmudic doctors, arrived 
at by a majority vote, or at least by an informal 
taking of the consensus of opinion in a learned body 
possessing the proper authority, became the accepted 
law of Jewish life, while their “‘obiter dicta” carried 
considerable moral weight. 

The charity injunctions or precepts of Scripture 
received a great deal of attention in the ‘Talmudic 
discussions and legislation. The pages of the Tal- 
mud reflect the high spirit of the Bible regarding 
relief and show the practical application of the 
Biblical sources to the solution of the problems of 
a later day. The elaborated and amplified material 
now became the recognized authority. 

As is characteristic of the very loosely ordered 
arrangement of the Talmud in general, there is no 
systematic assemblage of philanthropic material in 
any given tractate. Matter bearing on charity is 
found scattered throughout the various’ treatises. 
The largest single section in the Babylonian Talmud 
is Baba Batra, pages 8a through 11a, while the 
tractate Peah (chap. 8, para. 6-8), contains the most 
considerable single portion of the Jerusalem Talmud 
(Jerushalmi). 

The legislation and thought of the Talmud on 
charity, as well as on all other matters, established 
the standards of procedure and the general outlines 
of sentiment for the entire rabbinical era which fol- 


THE TALMUD 55 


lowed, this being substantially identical with the 
medieval. Since all later writings derive their au- 
thority from the Talmud, we have, in order to make 
clear the historic continuity of the stream, as well 
as for reasons of convenience, merged what the 
Talmud has to say on the subject of general public 
relicf with the matter found in the writings of the 
subsequent masters bearing on the same theme under 
the heading “General Public Relief and Its Adminis- 
tration.” Indications of sources are there given, 
so that the reader can, if he so desires, trace the 
data to their chronological moorings. 

All that we can attempt here in the way of pre- 
senting something of its vast amount of dicta on the 
other aspects of philanthropy, scattered over hun- 
dreds of pages without classification, in unordered 
sequence, and usually called forth in connection with 
some discussion only incidentally related, is to cite 
a few rulings, observations and incidents, under ap- 
propriate captions. 


Importance of Doing Charity. 


“R. Assi said, ‘Charity outweighs all the other 
commandments together.’’’ Baba Batra ga. 

“R. Huna said, ‘Whoever busies himself in the 
study of the Law alone (without engaging in acts 
of loving-kindness) is like one who recognizes no 
God.’” Abodah Zara 17b. 

“Even a poor person who receives charity must 
in turn give charity.” Gittin 7b. 


56 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


‘Simon the Just used to say, “The world rests on 
three things: upon the Torah, worship and the prac- 
tice’ of scharity:: i) pote <2: 


The Spirit of Giving, Not the Amount, Counts. 


‘R. Isaac said: ‘Whoever gives a farthing to a 
man is blessed with seven blessings; and whoever 
comforts him with words is blessed with eleven bless- 
ings.’”’ Baba Batra gb. 

‘‘R, Simeon ben Yochai said: ‘It is meet for a 
man to deliver himself unto a burning oven rather 
than cause his fellow-man to blush in public.’ ” 
Ketubot 67b. 

“Tf a poor man does not want to accept charity, 
a ruse may be used and he should be given it as a 
present or a loan.” Ibidem. 


Generosity and Parsimony. 


“Tf a man’s means allow, he should give according 
to the needs of the poor. If his means do not allow 
that much, he should give a fifth of his possessions, 
this being the highest standard; or one-tenth, which 
is the average. Less than that betokens a mean 
spirit.”’ Ketubot 50a and 67b. 


The Poor to Be Given More Than Mere Subsistence. 


‘‘Mar Ukba sent his son to a poor man with the 
usual 400 Zuz he allowed him on the eve of the Day 
of Atonement. The son returned and said the man 
was not in need. ‘Why, what have you seen?’ asked 


THE TALMUD 57 


Mar Ukba. He said, ‘I observed that he was served 
with old wine.’ Said Mar Ukba, ‘He has been 
brought up to it (i.e., he is used to it; it is proper).’ 
He thereupon doubled the amount and sent it to 
him. When Mar Ukba was on the point of death, 
he said, ‘Bring me my charity account.’ He found 
the total to be 7,000 dinar. He said, “The provisions 
are meagre and the road is a long one.’ ’”’ Ketubot 


67b. 


Motives and Rewards. 


“I believe you should do the good deed (give 
away the money) for its own sake.’’ Quoted as a 
teaching of R. Jochanan to his own relatives. Baba 
Batra 10a. 

‘All charity and kindness that Israel does begets 
great peace and powerful intercessors between Israel 
and their father in heaven.” Ibidem. 

“Charity actually averts death.” Sabbath 156b. 

“King Monobaz distributed lavishly his own 
treasures and the treasures of his fathers. His 
brothers and relatives complained and said to him: 
‘Thy fathers stored up and added to what their 
fathers left and thou squanderest it all.’ He an- 
swered, ‘“‘My fathers hoarded up for here below; I 
store up for heaven. My fathers hoarded up in a 
place where the human hand can lay hold; I store 
up in a place where the hand cannot reach. My 
fathers hoarded up something that yields no fruit; 
I store up something that yields fruit. My fathers 


58 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


hoarded up money; I store up treasures in the shape 
of human souls. My fathers hoarded up for this 
life; I store up for the life to come.” Baba Batra 
Ita; Jerushalmi Peah 1:1; Tosephta Peah 4:18. 
Zuckermandel edit., p. 24.1° 

Rabbi Judan, reduced in fortune, sells half of 
the small field left to him, and contributes the money 
from the sale to the collectors of charity. He finds 
a treasure in the remaining portion of the field and 
is restored to his former prosperity. Jerushalmi 
Horayot III, 4. 


Why God Permits Poverty to Exist. 


‘“R. Meir said, Should a skeptic object and say, 
‘If your God loves the poor, why does He not sustain 
them?’ answer him, ‘In order that we may be saved 
from hell.’ And this is the very question Turnus 
Rufus asked of Akiba.” The Roman compared the 
sufferings of the poor to the punishment visited by 
a king on a servant who had angered him, and argued 
that God must be displeased with those who relieve 
the lot of the poor, just as the king would be offended 
if someone supplied his imprisoned servant with 
food. Akiba retorted by saying that the comparison 
is rather with a king who had imprisoned his own son 
for an offense but who was pleased with any one 
who sent the prisoner food. Baba Batra toa. 

** Cf, Sermon on the Mount: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures 


upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves 
break through and steal,” etc., Matt. 6:19-20. 


THE TALMUD 59 


Prevention Better Than Relief. 

“R. Abba said, in the name of R. Simeon ben 
Lakesh, ‘He who advances a loan is greater than he 
who gives charity and he who puts in capital for 
partnership (with the person in distress) is more 
meritorious than all others.’ Sabbath 63a. 


Destitution and Repugnant Work to Be Preferred 
to Taking Charity. 


‘“‘Make thy Sabbath a weekday and do not be 
reduced to need the help of human beings.’”” Rabbi 
Jochanan. Pesachim 113a. 

‘Skin a carcass on the street and take pay for it, 
and do not say, ‘I am a priest,’ or ‘I am a great 


man.’’’ Said by Rav to R. Kahana. Ibidem. 
On Neglecting to Support One’s Children. 


‘‘“A snake bears children and casts them on the 
city (for support). Ketubot 49b. 

‘Turn a mortar upside down (i.e., erect a plat- 
form) in public and call out: “The raven wants 
children and this man does not want children.’ ”’ 


Ibidem. 
Sympathy and Understanding Required cs Both 


Giver and Receiver. 
In giving a symbolic interpretation of the charac- 
_ ters of the alphabet (put in the mouth of children 
who visited the academy), the Talmud muses whim- 
ically on the forms of the letters Gimmel and 


60 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Dalet. The two letters together mean ‘Gemol 
Dallim” (os 51), “Show kindness to the poor.” 
‘Why does the foot of the Gimmel go out towards 
the Dalet? Because it is the way of the benevolent 
to run after the poor. Why is the foot of the Dalet 
turned towards the Gimmel? ‘That the Dalet (2.e., 
the poor) should be on hand (i.e., they should not 
make it necessary for the benevolent to run after 
them). Why is the face of the Dalet turned away 
from the Gimmel? ‘That the help should be given 
to him secretly, sparing him blushes.’ Sabbath 
104a. 


CHAPTER III 
THE CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 


As already indicated, the Talmud remained the 
supreme authority over Jewish life until the Jewish 
communities came under secular jurisdiction as inte- 
gral portions of the common citizenry in modern 
times.t But because of its complexity and loose 
order, which made its use difficult for the average 
man, and also with the view of recording and stand- 
ardizing the various interpretations that had sprung 
up around its legislation, several later scholars of dis- 
tinction endeavored to systematize its material into 
orderly codes of law. Three of these became stand- 
ard manuals in Jewish life whose authority was wide- 
spread, well-nigh universal. 

The first of these compilations is the Mishneh 
Torah (Second Law) also known as the Yad Ha- 
Hazakah (The Mighty Hand), the work of the 
greatest of the medieval Jewish thinkers and 
scholars, Moses Maimonides (born Cordova 1135, 
died Cairo, 1204). Owing to the advanced thought 

*It still wields great authority among the faithful of the ortho- 
dox. ... “The compilation of the Talmud signifies nothing less 
than the final fixation of the entire Jewish law.” Louis Ginzberg, 


“Codification Law,” in Jewish Encyclopedia. 
61 


62 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


and methods of Maimonides, the authority of this 
code, as well as of his other writings, was challenged 
by a considerable fraction of Jewry during his life- 
time, but it met with universal recognition soon there- 
after, and retained its hold until the dissolution of 
rabbinical control in modern days. 

Philanthropy occupies a position of dignity and 
importance in the Maimonides code. His own ad- 
ditions and exposition of the Biblical and Talmudic 
material reach a height of humanity and spirituality 
without parallel in medieval times and scarcely ex- 
celled by any legislation or dicta in the twentieth 
century. It would be hard to find any brief summary 
of the motives that should animate relief and the 
manner that should characterize its dispensing that 
compares to his Eight Degrees of Charity. 

THe ErcHut DEGREES OF CHARITY 
(From Maimonides, ‘Portions of the Poor,’ Chap. 
10, Paran7-14) 

There are eight degrees in the giving of charity, one su- 
perior to the other. A high degree, than which there is no 
higher, is that of one who takes hold of an Israelite who 
has become impoverished and gives him a gift or a loan or 
goes into partnership with him or finds work for him, in 
order to strengthen his hand so that he be spared the necessity 
of appealing for help. And concerning him it is said, “Then 
shalt thou uphold him, as a stranger and a settler shall he 
live with thee’ (Lev. 25:35), as if to say: Take hold of 
him that he fall not and come to need. 

Less than this (i.e., next below in rank) is the case of 
one who gives charity to the poor, without knowing to whom 
he gives and without the poor knowing from whom he 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS ~ 63 


takes. For behold this is a good deed done for its own sake. 
An instance of this is (what took place) in the Chamber 
of Silence (or Unostentation) in the Sanctuary, where the 
righteous brought their gifts secretly and the respectable 
poor helped themselves secretly. And akin to this is the 
case of the one who contributes to the public charity fund. 
And one should not contribute to the charity fund unless 
he knows that he who is in charge of it is trustworthy, wise 
and understands how to manage it properly, like R. Chan- 
aniah ben Teradyon. 

Less than this is the case of the one who knows to whom 
he gives, without the poor knowing from whom he receives. 
An example of this is the practice of distinguished wise men 
who used to go secretly and leave money at the doors of the 
poor. And in this manner it is fitting to act, and it is then 
the highest procedure, if those appointed over the charity 
work do not conduct it properly. 

Less than this is the case where the poor man knows from 
whom he takes but the giver does not know the receiver. 
An example of this type is the practice of the wise who 
used to wrap up money in their cloaks and cast the bundles 
back of them (without looking), the poor coming after- 
wards to pick them up, thus being spared all shame. 

Less than this is the case of him who gives without being 
asked. 

Less than this is the case of him who gives after he is 
asked. 

Less than this is the case of him who gives less than is 
proper, but in a pleasant manner. 

Less than this is the case of him who gives reluctantly. 


Teachings on the subject of helping the poor occur 
in his various writings,” but the major portion of his 


Maimonides codified and interpreted the Rabbinic law based 
on the Biblical injunction to “send gifts to the poor.” (Esther 


64. JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


treatment of charity is found in the second section 
of Book Seven, Division Three of The Mighty 
Hand under the caption “Portions of the Poor” 
(Matnot Aniyyim oy nnn) from which the 
“Eight Degrees of Charity” was quoted. Following 
the order of the Mishnah, he attaches his observa- 
tions on charity generally to his codification of the 
Biblical agricultural provisions for the poor and de- 
pendent classes. 

To the end of incorporating and harmonizing the 
various decisions and opinions on Jewish law which 
accumulated since Maimonides’ codification and also 
with a view to abridging and simplifying it, Jacob 
ben Asher (born in Germany, date uncertain; died 
in Toledo, Spain, before 1340) made a new codex 
called Arbaah Turim (‘The Four Rows’’) or, more 
popularly Tur, which, without displacing Mai- 
monides, held the field as the standard authority for 
two centuries. 

The subject of beneficence receives elaborate treat- 
ment in the J'ur, in the ‘“‘Row”’ called Yoreh Deah, 
under the caption Hilkot Zedakah (‘“The Laws of 
Charity’). The Tur formulates the principles 
ana methods of relief with scientific care and in lucid 
style. ‘his compilation of all preceding enactments 
and dicta on charity is the most complete one made 
up to that time. The subject matter is arranged ac- 


9:22) on the Feast of Purim. Cf. Claude G. Montefiore’s transla- 
tion, in his Bible for Home Reading, Vol. 2, pp. 406-407. Mac- 
millan Co., London, 1920. 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS _ 65 


cording to logical divisions and subdivisions, such as 
The Duty to Give, the Measure of Giving, and so 
forth. Its general plan became the model for all 
subsequent codifiers. 

The author’s own opinions and additions while 
perhaps not quite as original as those of Maimonides, 
breathe a deep spirit of humanity. I translate from 
the Hebrew and quote the first section which is in 
the nature of an Introduction to the whole. 


“Tt is a duty to give as much as one can 
afford. One must be very, very careful, more 
so than with any other positive commandment, 
lest the needy die if he does not receive help 
at once. He who hides his eyes from the poor 
is called a base fellow (Deut. 15:9), while 
he who is conscientious in this is by that very 
fact attested as coming from the seed blessed 
of God. The eminence of Israel and the Re- 
ligion of Truth are dependent for their con- 
tinued security on Zedakah (Is. 54:14) and 
Israel’s redemption is conditioned upon Zeda- 
kah. It is greater than sacrifices. One is never 
impoverished through the giving of charity 
and no evil is ever caused thereby, for it is said: 
‘The work of Zedakah shall be peace (Is. 
32:17). And whoever shows mercy to the 
poor receives mercy at the hands of God. And 
a man should also give earnest thought to the 
consideration that as he seeks at all times from 
the Holy One that He should provide for his 


66 


JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


support and heed his supplication, so he should 
heed the cry of the poor. And also that God 
is near to the cry of the poor and also that God 
has a covenant with the poor (Ex. 22:21-26). 
A man should further consider that the revolv- 


~ ing wheel of life makes it certain that he himself 


must eventually come to such a pass, and if not 
he, his son or his grandson. And he should 
not be influenced by the thought, ‘Why shall 
I reduce my possessions by giving to the poor?’, 
for he should know that his money is naught 
else but a trust fund to be used in accordance 
with the will of Him who entrusted it, and His 
will is that he distribute thereof to the poor, 
and that is the best portion He derives from 
it. And furthermore (he should know) that 
the fact is clear and established that he will 
not come to want on account of the charity he 
gave but, on the contrary, it will bring him 
added wealth and honor. . .. And further 
(the giving of charity) averts hard decrees and 
in famine saves from death, as happened to 
the woman of Zarephat (I Kings, 17: 8-24) by 
virtue of the small cake she gave Elijah. And 
the withholding of charity keeps away those 
who are approaching the Shekinah*® (the 
Divine Presence) from it and from the Torah, 
as happened with Ammon and Moab who were 
near to us but were kept away because they did 


* That is, those ready to embrace the faith. 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 67 


not receive us with bread and water. But it 
brings near those who are far, to nestle under 
the wings of the Shekinah, as happened to 
Jethro when he said: ‘Call him and let him eat 
bread’ (Ex. 2:20). Accordingly, one must be 
very scrupulous to give as is meet. 

‘And I shall presently explain the nature of 
it as I found it written in the name of R. Saadia 
and out of the words of R. Moses ben Maimon 
(Maimonides), together with some other 
opinions. And I shall make clear at the outset 
who is obligated to give, and how much he is 
obligated to give, and when he must give, and 
how much it is meet to give to each one, and to 
whom he shall give, and which takes precedence, 
and who is eligible to receive, and from whom, 
and how it is collected and distributed, and its 
voluntary phases, and its diversion before it 
reaches the hands of the collectors and after.” 


Circumstances resembling those which led to the 
production of Jacob ben Asher’s Tur, in time 
made necessary the creation of a new code. The 
Shulchan Aruk (The Set Table), the work of 
Joseph Caro (b. Spain or Portugal 1488; d. Safed, 
Palestine 1575), answered this need, appearing in 
1565.* It eclipsed the Tur as the standard au- 

*The “Shulchan Aruk” was written by Caro in his old age for 
the benefit of those who did not possess the education necessary 


to understand his earlier and more erudite work “Bet Yosef,” 
published 1550-1559. His own preference was for the “Bet 


68 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


thority, without however rendering it obsolete. The 
Shulchan Aruk, following the same general classifi- 
cation as the Tur, likewise treats of charity in the 
division Yoreh Deah and under the subject ‘‘Laws 
of Charity” (Hilkot Zedakah).> The material here 
takes the form of commandments (Mizvot). ‘The 
Shulchan Aruk has remained the standard law 
of Jewish life wherever rabbinical authority has 
maintained itself. 

It must be understood clearly that these three 
standard codes which served as the guide books of 
Jewish law from the twelfth century on did not 
in any way supersede the Talmud, which remained 
the only real decisive and final authority. Their ex- 
positions of the Talmud were, however, commonly 
regarded as the correct ones, though there were not 
lacking instances of very eminent rabbis who per- 
mitted themselves independent interpretations (Pose- 
kim) of specific points not in accord with the 
standard codifiers.® 
Yosef,” but the “Shulchan Aruk” became the popular work. (Cf. 
‘Louis Ginzberg, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Joseph b. Ephraim 
Caro.” 

°An English translation has been made by Louis Feinberg under 
the title, “Section on Charity from the Shulhan Arukh,” as 
Number 6 in the “Studies in Social Work,” of the N. Y. School of 
Philanthropy, N. Y., Nov., 1915. 

° Prof. Ginzberg thus summarizes the work of the three great 
systematizers of rabbinical law: “The three great codifiers of the 
Middle Ages, Maimonides, Jacob ben Asher and Caro, had each a 

special task: Maimonides, that of systematizing the law; Jacob 


ben Asher, of sifting it critically; and Caro of unifying it.” J. E., 
Codification of the Law. 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS _ 69 


Numerous lesser codes appeared from the days 
of Maimonides on, virtually all of them devoting a 
section of their works to philanthropy under the 
headings Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. On the 
whole they add very little to what the major sources 
contain. The same thing is true of the entire type 
of Responsa literature (Sheélot U-teshubot—‘‘In- 
quiries and Responses”) which abounded through- 
out the medieval period. ‘These latter are indeed 
much more given to legalistic content and style. 


Inspirational Sources Other than Codes 


There is a vast array of inspirational sources bear- 
ing on charitable ideals and effort outside of the legal 
material (Halakah). Ethical and homiletical litera- 
ture, in the form of story and instruction (usually 
called Haggadah or Agadta) is found intertwined 
with the legal decisions or set down in independent 
works. Narratives and admonitions of this kind 
occur frequently throughout the Talmud while the 
Midrashic literature containing the homilies of 
teachers and preachers extending over many cen- 
turies—probably from the third to the ninth—fairly 
teems with them. ‘The codes allude to them and 
the numerous Biblical and Talmudic commentaries, 
and supercommentaries, busy themselves with them. 
Of independent works devoted altogether, or in 
large part, to philanthropy, the following deserve 
special mention: 


70 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


(1) Sefer Ha-Chinnuk (>:nn sep), “The Book 
of Pedagogy,’ by Aaron (ben Joseph) Halevi of 
Barcelona (13th century) who devotes several para- 
graphs to charity, where a high spiritual note is 
struck, 

(2) Sefer Chasidim (pron 120), “The Book 
of the Pious,” a work accredited to Judah He-Chasid, 
written c. 1200, which sets aside several considerable 
sections to the treatment of this theme and, at times, 
reaches a lofty ethical level. 

(3) Menorat Ha-Maor (x07 mi»), “The 
Candelabra of Light,” by Isaac Aboab the Elder 
(13th century), where paragraphs 186-221 concern 
themselves with Charity and Loving-kindness. 

(4) Matteh Mosheh (nem non), “The Staff 
of Moses,” by Moses of Przemysl (c. 1600), which 
devotes seven chapters to Charity and one to Loving- 
kindness. 

(5) Meil Zedakah (np syn), “The Mantle of 
Charity,” by Elijah ben Solomon Abraham Ha- 
kohen of Smyrna (d. 1729), a large anthology of 
thoughts and sentiments on the subject of charity 
and personal service gathered from various sources— 
Talmud, Midrash, later writings—mostly of an 
ethical character, and containing also personal re- © 
flections by the author. 

Other works, concerning themselves to a lesser 
extent with our subject, are referred to elsewhere 
in this study as the need arises, or are listed in the 
bibliography. 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 471 


There is one writer of the Middle Ages whose 
incidental reflections on benevolence deserve to be 
singled out, like the rest of his teachings, because of 
their noble spiritual character, representing a beauti- 
ful blending of philosophy and religiousness and, at 
times, bordering on the mystic. We refer to Rabbi 
Bachya Ibn Pakuda, judge in the rabbinical court at 
Saragossa, Spain, in the first half of the eleventh 
century. He wrote a remarkable book on Jewish 
Ethics, Duties of the Heart, in Arabic, in 1040. 
It was translated into Hebrew under the title Cho- 
bot Ha-Lebabot by Judah Ibn Tibbon in the years 
1161-80. We quote some excerpts which are specially 
notable for their analysis of human motives—im- 
mediate and ultimate—as they bear on benevolence. 


The Motives of Human Benevolence 


“There are five aspects of human beneficence:—(1) that 
of the father to his children; (2) of the master to his slave; 
(3) of the rich to the poor, in order that he may receive 
the reward of heaven; (4) that of some men to others, for 
the sake of acquiring a good name, or honour, or worldly 
reward; (5) that of the strong towards the weak, because 
he pities them, and because he is pained on account of their 
condition. 

“Tf we look closely at all these kinds of benevolence, we 
shall find that, in motive, not one of them is entirely 
disinterested.” 


(Here follows an analysis of the first two 
aspects. ) 


72 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


“The beneficence of the rich to the poor, for the sake of 
the reward of heaven, is like the purchase by a business 
man of a great and permanent advantage to come to him at 
some future time, in return for a small, perishable, and 
contemptible good that he parts with immediately; and his 
only intention is to adorn his own soul in his after-life. And 
yet, in spite of all this, gratitude is due to him. 


(Here follows an analysis of the fourth aspect.) 


“Even he that takes pity upon the poor and the afflicted 
whose sufferings are painful to him, intends, by relieving 
them, to relieve himself of a pain that afflicts his own soul; 
and he is like one who, by the goodness of God, is healing 
himself of a painful illness; but yet he is not left without 
praise. 

“Thus the primary intention of everyone in doing good to 
others, is to do good to himself, or save himself from pain. 


Man’s Obligation of Gratitude to God 


“Tf man earns gratitude, reward and love for intermittent 
beneficence that is not unselfish, how great must be our obli- 
gation of service, gratitude and praise to the Creator of 
goodness, who therewith causes all good, and whose goodness 
is without end and continuous, and is entirely free from all 
egoistic motive or intention, but is a pure freewill gift, and 
whose kindness is extended to all reasonable beings. 


The Motive Forces That Impel Man to Grateful Service 


“There are two distinct motive forces impelling man to 
humble and grateful service of God. One of them is in- 
herent in human reason, implanted in man’s intelligence, 
and hidden deep within the very roots of his being; the 


CODES AND ETHICAL WORKS 73 


second is acquired by means of his hearing and under- 
standing. ‘This second is the Torah. 

“The service due to the humility of hope and fear is that 
which arises from the acquired, external motive which 
enforces the obligation with rewards and punishments in 
this world and in the world to come; the second kind is 
induced by the working of the hidden motive force of 
Reason, innate in human nature, and bound up with the 
union of man’s soul to his body. Both kinds of humility 
are praiseworthy, and both lead to a right way of life and 
conduct; but the one is the complement of the other, and 
the motive of the Torah is the stepping-stone to both, while 
the motive of Reason, and the way of proof, is the prefer- 
able and nearer to God. 

“The service undertaken at the prompting of Reason is 
free from all suspicion of hypocrisy, and from all admixture 
of hope or fear. It springs from a philosophic knowledge 
of how the creature is indebted to the Creator, and is not 
restricted to actual outward acts, but will include the ethical 
working of the heart and mind—the fulfilment of the duties 
of the heart.” * 

™The English translation used here is taken from Edwin Collins’ 


version of the book in the Wisdom of the East Series, pp. 26-30. 
N. Y., Dutton, 1910. 


CHAPTER IV 
RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 


IN a history extending over so many centuries, 
an experience so diverse and a literature correspond- 
ing, there is naturally a mass of sentiments and 
ideals of great variety and of some discordance, but 
in this case there is nevertheless easily discernible an 
impressive substratum of unified opinion and aspira- 
tion which we may with perfect propriety desig- 
nate the fundamental or underlying principles and 
ideals basic to Jewish philanthropy. The reverence 
for the original nucleus drawn from the Bible and 
from traditions of Biblical times and the similarity 
of living conditions throughout the various settle- 
ments in which Jews found themselves during this 
long period account in part for this unity; while the 
comparative rigidity of rabbinical legislation and 
outlook furnishes an additional reason why the early 
basic principles retained their position of primacy 
in the later generations of our era. 

We shall point out several currents of conviction 
and ideals that run through the field of Jewish 
charity laws and literature, watering and enriching 
the whole. 

74 


RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 75 


Clearly stated at times and implied always as a 
premise, is the thought that the poor and dependent 
are the special wards of God and are therefore com- 
mended to the conscience and tender solicitude of the 
well-to-do by their common Maker. “God is nigh 
unto the cry of the poor and has a (special) cove- 
nant with them,’ ? writes Tur. ‘‘Who are His 
people (i.e., his relatives)?” ‘The poor,” declares 
the Midrash.® 

In the spirit of the Bible, which speaks of the poor 
as “‘thy brother” and of his needs as the special con- 
cern of God, the ‘Talmud and post-Biblical authorities 
constantly admonish those who are comfortably cir- 
cumstanced to look after the proper maintenance of 
those in want or distress as if the well-to-do were 
His agents on earth. They are to give this matter 
their closest thought. R. Jonah * remarked, “‘Scrip- 
ture does not say, Happy is the man who giveth to 
the poor, but Happy is the man who considereth the 
poor (Ps. 41:2). This wording refers to one who 


*“God created the rich and the poor.” Meil Zedakah § 1598. 
The Biblical source for this sentiment is Prov. 22:2: “The rich 
and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all.” 
Cf. also Tur 247. 

* Tur 247. Cf. also Meil Zedakah § 1501. “The withholding 
of charity from the poor being like withholding it from God who 
undertakes to provide for the poor.” 

*Ex. Rabbah 31:12: “The ways of God are unlike the ways of 
human beings. Among men when one is rich and has a poor 
relative, he hides from before him, being embarrassed to converse 
with him. ... But if the relative is rich, all cling to him and 
love him. But the Holy One is not so. Who are His people? 
Re poota, 1.” 

*Palestinian teacher, 4th century, A.D. 


76 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


considers well how to do a good deed.” > The most 
devoted cultivation of religion misses its mark unless 
accompanied by works of loving-kindness. God 
himself has, set the example for human beings in 
personally ministering to the distressed, clothing the 
naked, visiting the sick, comforting the mourners, 
burying the dead. Commenting on the verse “After 
the Lord your God shall ye go” (Deut. 13:5) the 
Talmud says, “Just as He clothed the naked, as it 
is written, ‘The Lord God made tunics for Adam 
and his wife and clothed them’ (Gen. 3:21), so thou 
shouldst clothe the naked; as he visited the sick, 
as it is written, ‘The Lord appeared to him in the 
plain of Mamre’ (Gen. 18:1, i.e., Abraham was sick 
as the result of circumcision), so thou shouldst visit 
the sick; as God comforted the mourners, as it is 
written, ‘The Lord blessed Isaac, his son’ (Gen. 
25:11), so thou shouldst comfort the mourners; as 
God buried the dead, as it is written, ‘He buried him 
in the valley’ (Deut. 34:6), so shouldst thou bury the 
dead.’ Indeed, points out Rabbi Simlai, summariz- 
ing the above, the Torah begins and ends with in- 
stances of loving-kindness, God being the agent.’ 
The 613 commandments were reduced by David to 
11, by Isaiah to 6, by Micah to 3, and again by Isaiah 


*Jerush. Peah 8:8. Cf. also Tur 247: “One must be very, very 
careful, more so than with any other positive commandment, lest 
the needy perish through not receiving help at once.” Also Mat. 
An. 10:1. 

° Cf. Conversation of Chanina ben Teradyon and Eleazar ben 
Porta, Abodah Zarah 17 b. 

"Sotah 14 a. 


RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 77 


to 2, and by Habakkuk to 1, but in all the reductions 
charity (Zedakah) is mentioned or implied.2 God 
attaches great credit to the rendering of help to 
those created in His image.® Whoever denies the 
value of loving-kindness (Gemilut Chasadim) denies 
as it were the first principles of religion, i.e., the 
divine origin of the world, the foundation of which 
is loving-kindness (Chesed).1° Indeed, communion 
with God is hindered by the disinclination to do 
charity and furthered by its exercise (Tur. 
247). 

A second premise, running parallel with the first 
and often merging into it, is the assumption that 
all goods in the last analysis come from and belong 
to God, the Source of all things, their human posses- 
sors being merely custodians of this trust-fund who 
must share with those in want. ‘This idea, hover- 
ing in the background of practically all the writings 
on our theme, finds its clearest exposition perhaps 
in the Tur of Jacob ben Asher. ‘‘A man should 
not be influenced by the thought, ‘Why should I re- 
duce my possessions by giving to the poor?’ for he 
should know that his money is naught else but a 
deposit (or trust fund) to be used in accordance with 
the will of the depositor, and His will is that he 
distribute thereof to the poor and that is the best 
portion (i.e., the greatest benefit) He derives from 

®Meil Zedakah § 230, commenting on Makkot 23 b and 24 a. 


°Yalkut Shimeoni on Ps. 37, quoted by Meil Zedakah § 326. 
* Meil Zedakah, § 1322. 


~~ 


78 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


it.11 It is this conviction of the divine ownership 
of all goods that prompts Maimonides to quote ap- 
provingly the declaration of a poor man, in the Tal. 
mudic narrative, despite its lack of the niceties of 
good manners: “Do I eat at the expense of the 
community? I eat what belongs to God.” ?” 

Starting with the two premises just described, 
rabbinical doctrine, drawing the germ of its inspira- 
tion from Biblical teaching, sets forth several basic 
principles and ideals which may be summarized as 
follows: 

I. Charity (Zedakah)—whether in gifts or loans 
—does not represent a favor that might be withheld 
but an imperative obligation springing from ele- 
mentary considerations of justice. From the stand- 
point of the giver, assistance is a sacred duty; from 
that of the receiver it is an inalienable right.1% 
“Gifts to the poor,’ maintains Maimonides, “‘are not 
benevolence but debts.’ 14 Accordingly, all people, 
except orphans, are morally obligated to give charity, 
even the poor who themselves are supported by 
charity. he latter must give a portion of what they 


“Tur 247. 

™ Mat. An. 7:1, based on Jerush. Peah 8:8. Josephus explains 
the right of the poor to the corners, gleanings, etc., as the right of 
co-proprietors sprung from a common origin with the rich to the 
products of the land (Antig., Book IV, 8:21). This is the Biblical 
doctrine: “For to me belongs the entire earth” (Ex. 19:5 and 
Psalm 5:12), which according to Philo (De Humanitate § 11) 
is also at the basis of the Sabbatical and Jubilee year legislation. 

““The right to assistance was solved by the Bible long ago— 
the right and duty.” Lehmann, of. cit., p. 14. 

“Mat. An. 1:1-6 and 7:10. 


RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 79 


receive.> And whoever does not wish to give, or 
gives less than what is proper, should be compelled 
by the Bet Din (court) to give what the latter desig- 
nates; they may seize the reluctant person’s goods 
and take what is proper, and these goods may even 
be put to pledge on the eve of the Sabbath (when no 
other seizures were allowed).1® This refers to the 
minimum quotas designated for the community 
funds. There were, over and above these, voluntary 
amounts expected but not compelled, as additions to 
the community funds and, besides, sums left to be 
given as occasion arose in the way of personal char- 
ity. What is more, the duty to contribute was not 
confined to the individual, but extended to the com- 
munity as an organic whole. Maimonides, Jacob 
ben Asher and Joseph Caro elaborate on the oblig- 
atory nature of communal charity, laying down spe- 
cific rules for contribution to the primary and sec- 
ondary funds, based on the length of residence and 
proportioned to one’s means.?7 

And so, while great leeway was given to everyone 
as to the amount spent in the way of private charity 
and a good deal of latitude was allowed in the matter 
of the quantity contributed to the public funds, a 
decent minimum was exacted from all for the com- 
munal treasury, as an elementary obligation, de- 
volving on all members of the body social towards 


* Gittin 7 b, Mat. An. 9:18. 
* Tur 248; Shulchan Aruk 248:2. 
™ Mat. An. 9:1-18; Tur 248; Shul. Ar. 256:1. 


80 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


the support of their weaker brothers. The unwilling 
were not permitted altogether to shelve the neighbor- 
hood’s burdens on the generous. ‘They could not 
escape their plain duty as responsible members of a 
coherent social unit. The universalization of charity 
contributions made for a wide distribution of interest 
in the problems of relief with consequent democrati- 
zation of management. Everyone being expected, 
virtually required, to be a patron, the class of pa- 
tronized was automatically reduced to the lowest 
proportions. Effort to earn was stimulated and 
pride in self-dependence promoted, indolence and im- 
position decreasing in proportion. ‘There was the 
healthy pride, practically universal, of belonging to 
the class of those who are benefactors, like the feel- 
ing of dignity had by those who pay an income tax in 
our times, only with this difference: that the large 
degree of option left made for the free play of gene- 
rosity, put an edge of keenness to the pride felt and 
invested labor with a zest not its own. 

Il. Righteousness finds its most practical expres- 
sion in the doing of charity, or, conversely, charity is 
the best medium of the righteous life. It is no acci- 
dent that the Biblical word for righteousness, Zeda- 
kah, was adopted in post-Biblical times as the word 
for charity. It was the result of the concepts and 
habits of daily living. And there were emotional 
aspects to this identification. Neither the righteous- 
ness nor the charity of the Hebrews represented 
the result of a logically developed plan of conduct 


RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS 81 


perfectly poised and esthetically alluring, or mo- 
tivated by the love of reputation and good will, i.c., 
external satisfactions, but rather the product of 
spontaneous impulses and aspirations. Charles 
Stewart Loch, in his masterly article on ‘‘Charity 
and Charities’ in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
points out that the Jews brought into the work of 
charity the element of ethical fervor. This passion 
for justice and integrity—this burning zeal for the 
moral and spiritual, which they injected into all the 
directions of life and which, reaching beyond Hebrew 
boundaries, also permeated Christianity and Mo- 
hammedanism with its infectious warmth, elevated 
Jewish benevolence above the level of mere acts of 
expediency and kept it from sinking into the slough 
of cold routine. Charity and kindliness were felt to 
constitute so clearly the very stuff of rectitude that 
the good and the beneficent became inseparably iden- 
tified in thought, while the wicked could no longer 
be conceived as capable of the impulses of benevo- 
lence. And just as the extending of relief came to 
be considered a prerequisite of the righteous, so the 
accepting of it became the almost unfailing mark of 
integrity. Furthermore, as the basis of religiousness 
is righteousness, and as righteousness finds its chief 
vent through beneficence, charity becomes insepara- 
ble from true piety and holiness. So with the Biblical 
ideals of the befriending and support of the un- 
fortunate as the sine qua non of personal and social 
righteousness and religiousness to begin with, the 


82 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


rabbis and lay leaders emphasized the urgent duty 
of rectifying the inequalities of wealth and comfort 
by the surrender—voluntary and exacted—of surplus 
by those who have it to those who suffer from de- 
ficiencies. The affectionate regard in which these 
Biblical ideals were held in the subsequent centuries 
may be judged from the fact that the book of Psalms 
with its unwearying compassion for the unfortunate 
was apportioned into sections for responsive read- 
ings by the night watch (Maamad) during the lat- 
ter years of the existence of the Temple, this custom 
being taken over in the popular houses of prayer 
after the destruction of the national shrine, and also 
from the circumstance that the famous passage 
from Isaiah beginning with the sentence, ‘‘Is this the 
fast I have chosen?” (58:6f.), and proceeding to 
define true religion as justice breaking forth into 
charity and kindness and liberation, was given the 
place of supreme honor in the liturgy adopted by 
the synagogue as the Haphtarah reading (Prophetic 
portion) for Atonement Day. So essentially did 
charity and with it personal service become the de- 
termining test of character that the Talmud, quot- 
ing the distinguished Babylonian master Rabba, 
lays down the dictum, ‘“‘Whoever has these three 
qualities is surely of the seed of Abraham—compas- 
sion, modesty and benevolence (npn Sy13 yu" yor) .”” 28 
Maimonides was attracted by this dictum and in 
different phraseology incorporated it among his pre- 


* Kallah, Ch. ro. 


RULING PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS — 83 


cepts,'® and Jacob ben Asher rounded it out thus, 
‘‘Hfe who shuts his eyes to the needs of the poor is 
called Belial (Deut. 15:9), while he who is con- 
scientious in this is by that very fact testified to as 
coming from the seed blessed by God.” 2° There is 
no religious lapse worse than uncharitableness, not 
even idolatry.24. Indeed, concentration on religious 
pursuits, noble as it is, is to no purpose; unless ac- 
companied by works of charity, it is no better than 
atheism.??. The author of the ‘‘Four Rows” carried 
out his own preachment in making his own testa- 
ment. In the ethical will left by him in conjunction 
with his brother Jehudah their father’s generosity 
is confirmed and expanded.8 

eoiviat. Any 10 22. 

* Tur 247. 

= Mat. An. 10:3. 


* Abodah Zarah, 17 b. 
See p. 107 below. 


CHAPTER V 
MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 


WE have stated before that it is always 2 mistake 
to account for an individual’s course of conduct by 
One motive only; even a single action, seemingly de- 
tached, almost invariably reflects a complex of mo- 
tives. This observation is still more true of large 
masses of people; they are swayed by many con- 
siderations operating simultaneously, some of the 
motives being consciously entertained and others 
hardly emerging from the vague realm of the 
unformulated. 

The most that may be said with truth, when en- 
deavoring to ferret out the motives that actuate 
people in their behavior, is that a certain motive 
appears to be uppermost in any given situation or 
that this or that consideration appears to recur 
oftener than any other during a given period and 
may therefore be designated as the abiding motive. 
Accordingly, the claim made by certain writers, like 
Gehrhard Uhlhorn } that Jewish charity was almost 
wholly evoked by a sense of duty grounded in the 


* Christian Charity in the Ancient Church, Charles Scribner’s 
Sons, N. Y., 1883, Chap. II, “Under the Law.” ‘This theory runs 
through the entire chapter. 


Sy 


MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 85 


religious law, whereas Christian charity in the early 
centuries was altogether motivated by love, is to 
be discounted as an exaggeration arising from a pre- 
dilection for generalization. This author allows 
himself to fall into the same error in appraising the 
nature of pagan charity, including the charity of the 
enlightened Greeks and Romans, which he charac- 
terizes as having been evoked by the spirit of self- 
interest.2 Even a cursory reading of Greek and 
Roman literature and history will convince the stu- 
dent that the motive of love of one’s fellowmen 
figured largely in the benefactions of those peoples, 
while a study of Jewish sources and life reveals 
the fact that the impulse of love held a position of 
no mean importance among the various driving 
forces that impelled to beneficence. What may be 
said in the way of a general observation, and this 
only with great reserve, is that in Jewish charity, 
the ideal of righteousness is invoked more as an 
impelling motive than in Christian charity, whereas 
the ideal of love is more appealed to in Christian 
benevolence than in Jewish. 

The ultimate sanction of Jewish philanthropy, as 
for all other meritorious deeds, was obedience to the 
will of God. On final analysis, all right conduct, 
according to Jewish thought, receives its authority 
from a higher than human power, and the exercise 
thereof is obligatory on man even when logical rea- 
sons are not sufficient to establish its value. But 


apn cit. to. 


86 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


conformity to the will of God as the last sanction 
is not an arbitrary requirement; it is justified be- 
cause of God’s ethical nature. ‘“‘Not God, the mas- 
ter, but God, the ideal of all morality, is the foun- 
tain-head of man’s moral doctrine,’’ declares Prof. 
Moritz Lazarus to be the fundamental principle of 
Jewish ethics which he finds embodied in the Biblical 
verse from the Holiness Code so highly esteemed in 
Jewish doctrine at all times: “Holy shall ye be, be- 
cause I the Lord your God am holy.” (Lev. 19:2).8 
Looked at from the standpoint of its ultimate re- 
ligious sanction, Jewish charity, like the rest of 
Jewish virtue, may be described as “‘Imitatio Dei.” 
But the direct motives within that enveloping 
general sanction, the motives that stirred the hearts 
of the individual men and women when they brought 
succor to their needy fellowmen, were many and 
various. They ranged from those that savored dis- 
tinctly of self-interest to those that ffathomed the 
deepest soundings of love and altruism. Many im- 
pulses, as a rule, worked together in the production 
of a given act. Often the predominant consideration 
stands out clearly. “The same observation is true 
with regard to the incentives that controlled mass 
action. [hese likewise constituted a complex but 
the ruling considerations are usually discernible. 
There were strong influences holding over from 
the Biblical period which exercised great potency in 
determining charitable action in conjunction with 


* Ethics of Judaism, Vol. 1, Ch. 2, Sec. 83. 


MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 87 


motives of newer origination. Under the general 
classification of motives of self-interest may be men- 
tioned the appeal of health, longevity and prosperity, 
and earthly happiness generally, the same appeal 
which in reference to the practice of another virtue, 
finds a place in the [en Commandments in the clause 
“that thy days may be long in the land which the 
Lord thy God giveth thee.” * This appeal to give, 
based on terrestrial rewards, is one frequently em- 
ployed by way of story and exhortation. It found 
its way into the old prayer book, in the liturgy for 
the New Year and the Day of Atonement, where it 
is invoked as a stimulus for virtuous living: “But 
repentance, prayer and charity avert the evil de- 
cree.” Effective use was made of this same appeal 
at funerals when the sexton, carrying a charity box, 
invited contributions, calling aloud, “Charity saveth 
from death.” 

When the doctrine of merit was extended, in post- 
Biblical days, to include the hereafter within its 
sphere of functioning, happiness in the world to 
come was added as a new and powerful incentive to 
the doing of charity. This new motive went hand 
in hand with the appeal to earthly rewards and was 
usually interwoven with it. We have already cited 
this motive as the principle which controlled King 
Monobaz’s action.> A few other instances will suf- 
fice. Deeds of loving-kindness, declares the Mish- 


* Ex.. 20:12. 
’See p. 57 above. 


88 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


nah, are among the specially meritorious acts to be 
rewarded in this world and in the next. Maimo- 
nides, who, as we shall presently see, ultimately ap- 
peals to the highest motives of love and service in 
human nature, does not hesitate to dwell upon re- 
ward in the hereafter as an incentive to benevolence. 
Rabbi Meir (c. 200) went so far as to say that if 
it were not for the poor who provided them with 
the opportunity of exercising benevolence, the well- 
to-do would be denied salvation in the world to 
come altogether.® 

The rewards of honor and praise from one’s fel- 
lowmen were not stressed; they were, indeed, in 
theory, at least, discouraged as out of accord with 
the general principles of giving which required pri- 
vacy and impersonal relations as much as possible. 
But in actuality, abundant praise and glory were ac- 
corded generous givers.® 

The higher motives, 7.e., the motives dissociated 
from personal advantage, operated as ever powerful 
springs of action alongside of the appeals based on 
self-interest. These motives ran the entire gamut 
of pity, sympathy and love for the unfortunate. 

*Peah 1:1, see p. 51 above. 

"Mat. An. 1:15. 

* Baba Batra, 10a. 

° Cf. the laudation of the donors to the funds for redemption of 
captives cited by Jacob Mann, of. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 87-95, 204-205, 
232, 244. Cf. also the lavish praise of R. Paltiel and his son Sam- 
uel for large donations for various purposes, given in Kahira, 


Egypt, in the eleventh century. A. Neubauer: Medieval Jewish 
Chronicles, Vol. Il, pp. 128, 130. 


MOTIVES AND SANCTIONS 89 


All sentiments and acts falling in the category of 


Gemilut Chasadim, “loving-kindness,’’ were so mo- 
) 


tivated. The ultimate sanction for all of these 
sprang from the love of God and the desire to imi- 
tate His nature. Bachyain His Duties of the Heart, 
emphasizes the superior value of the higher motives 
of conduct. His book carried great weight.1° Per- 
haps the most telling monition in behalf of the nobler 
incentives to virtue was written by Maimonides. 
We quote an extensive excerpt herewith: 

“Let no one say I will fulfill the precepts of the Torah 
and labor to acquire its wisdom in order that I may acquire 
all the blessings set forth therein or that I may deserve 
eternal life in the world to come; or I will keep myself 
far from the sins condemned in the Torah, in order that 
I may be delivered from the penalties enumerated therein, 
or that I may not be cut off from the life thereafter. It 
is not fitting to serve God in this way, for he who serves 
Him thus does so out of fear. Such service differs from the 
high kind of service of the prophets and the sages. Only 
ignorant people and women and children in the first stages 
of their development serve God out of fear. When their 
knowledge grows, they serve Him from motives of love. 

“He who serves God from love devotes himself to the 
Law and the observance of its commandments and walks 
in the paths of wisdom not because of any worldly con- 
sideration nor out of fear of the consequences of evil-doing 
nor even to inherit good in the hereafter; he does the right 
because it is right, though in the end good will be added 
thereto. A very high degree of moral worth is this; not 
every wise man attains unto it. Such was the distinction 
of our father Abraham whom the Holy One called his 

* See page 71 f above. 


90 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


“lover” because he served Him from love alone; and this 
is the high practice which God commanded us through 
Moses in the words, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.’ 
Let but that true love of God fill the heart of man and he 
will presently perform every duty from motives of love.” 14 


*Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamadda, Laws of Repentance, Ch. 10, 
paras. 1 and 2. 


CHAPTER VI 
CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 


IT has been seen that Jewish charity did not limit 
itself to the provision of the elementary necessities 
of food, raiment and shelter, but embraced a much 
broader area of service including the extension of 
loans, and the provision of work and household 
necessities. It is now to be made clear that even 
this broad field of assistance was regarded as in- 
complete, indeed as failing to reach the highest ex- 
pression of aid, unless it was amplified by personal 
ministrations imbued with the spirit of mercy and 
love. 

Tracing their sources to Biblical springs, two cur- 
rents of philanthropic service course through the 
field of Jewish thought and activity. They are the 
streams of Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. The 
first refers to the quantity and kind of aid to which 
the unfortunate have a claim, moral or legal; or, 
changing the viewpoint from the beneficiary to the 
benefactor, such aid, in amount or nature, as de- 
volves upon the giver as an obligation, be this obli- 
gation required by law and custom or be it only a 
matter of conscience. The second, Gemilut Chasa- 

OI 


92 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


dim, refers to those modes of assistance which con- 
stitute what may be called the voluntary surplus of 
benefaction, including that margin of generosity 
which transcends any and all contributions evoked 
by a sense of duty, and also, and primarily, those 
personal services on the part of the benefactor which 
spring from emotions of compassion and human 
kinship. The nearest translation for Zedakah in 
English is “charity”; the root meaning of the word 
is “right” or “justice.” It is difficult to find a suit- 
able equivalent in English for the Hebrew phrase 
“Gemilut Chasadim.” ‘‘Chasadim”’ and its singular 
‘‘chesed”’ are used in the Bible and in post-Biblical 
literature to convey the ideas of ‘love,’ “grace,” 
“compassion” and ‘kind deeds.” The closest ap- 
proach to its Hebrew meaning seems to be the 
rendering given it by the English Bible, namely, 
“loving-kindness.” 

The distinction here drawn between “‘charity” and 
“loving-kindness” is made very commonly either ex- 
plicitly or by implication throughout the literature 
of the post-Biblical period. It is already met with 
in the Talmud and Midrashic sources, where ‘‘Zeda- 
kah” and “‘Gemilut Chasadim” are frequently con- 
trasted,t and occurs often in the subsequent codes 
and ethical writings. Many of the authorities de- 
vote separate sections to these two phases of philan- 
thropy, as for instance, Isaac Aboab the Elder (13th 


* E.g. “Loving-kindness is much greater than charity,” Succah 49b. 


CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 93 


century)” and Moses of Przemysl (16th century) ,? 
while the greater number content themselves with 
pointing out the essential differences without setting 
up formal divisions, as for example, Maimonides 
(1135-1204) * and Aaron ben Joseph Halevi of Bar- 
celona (13th century).> Occasionally, the two con- 
cepts are merged, but in the vast majority of cases 
they are kept distinct, forming two golden strands 
in the cord of philanthropy. 

Leaving aside the consideration of that aspect of 
“loving-kindness” which has to do with extraor- 
dinary generosity, and confining our attention in the 
present chapter to that phase of it which is identi- 
fied with Personal Service, we note at the outset 


*In his work, The Candelabra of Light (Menorat Ha-maor), 
sections 186-204 and 205-221. 

*“The Staff of Moses” (Matteh Mosheh), one chapter on 
“Charity” and seven on “Loving-kindness.” 

*“Guide for the Perplexed” (Moreh Nebukim), Part III, Ch. 53. 
“Tt (chesed) is used especially to denote extraordinary kindness. 
And it should be noted that loving-kindness expresses itself in two 
ways (literally, includes two types): first, showing kindness to 
one that has no claim upon you; and, second, to do good to those 
to whom it is due in a greater measure than is due them. .. . The 
term “zedakah” is derived from “zedek,” “righteousness,” and 
means the right thing to do, that is, giving every one who has a 
claim on you according to his claim and giving to every being 
what he deserves.” Freely rendered, following the interpretation 
of Creskas. See Gerald Friedlander, Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. 
3, p. 297. This passage is quoted in Meil Zedakah, para. 732. 

° Book of Education (Sefer Ha-Chinnuk), Sec. 479: “And thou, 
my son, do not think that the commandment concerning charity 
refers only to the poor who has no bread nor garment; nay, it also 
applies to the rich . . . for Scripture always prefers deeds of kind- 
ness (Gemilut Chasadim) and commands us to satisfy the desires 
of creatures, children of the covenant, as far as is in our power.” 


94 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


that the ear-mark of “loving-kindness” is, to use the 
characterization given by Elijah of Smyrna, “that 
which a man does in his own person to aid his fel- 
lowmen.” ® It is this element of philanthropy that 
is extolled above all others; the gift of one’s self 
excels any financial contribution. This teaching runs 
through the literature of the entire Rabbinical era, 
from the Talmud to the eighteenth century authori- 
ties. Rabbi Eleazar II (ben Pedat, 3rd century) 
declared that loving-kindness transcends mere char- 
ity as reaping excels sowing.” On the same page of 
the Talmud a dictum of the Sages is cited, reading as 
follows: ‘‘Loving-kindness surpasses charity in three 
ways: Charity is done with one’s money, loving- 
kindness with one’s person or one’s money; charity 
is for the poor, loving-kindness for the poor or 
rich; charity is for the living, loving-kindness for 
the living or the dead.” Isaac Aboab the Elder, 
already quoted, interprets the expression ‘‘and 
clothed them,’ used of God in reference to Adam 
and Eve (Gen. 3:20), as conveying the meaning 
that God put on their garments of skin Himself, 
in order to teach humans the lesson that when one 
performs an act of loving-kindness, he should not 
do it through a proxy but with his own hands.8 
Personal Service came to be particularly identified 


°Meil Zedakah, Sec. 311. 

"Sukkah 4gb. 

“Op. cit., Sec. 186. Cited in Meil Zedakah Sec. 839. Cf. also 
Or Zarua, by Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (c. 1200-1270) on the 
“Laws of Charity” (Hilkot Zedakah), Sec. 1. 


CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 95 


with visiting the sick, ministering to the dying, bury- 
ing the dead, comforting the mourners, entertaining 
strangers, and providing poor maidens with dow- 
ries.° In the course of time, the expression, “Loving- 
kindness,’’ came also to be used to denote a free 
loan, and that signification has persisted up to this 
day; indeed, ‘‘Gemilut Chasadim” has become the 
designation by which free loan societies are com- 
monly known. 

Each of these types of Personal Service was ideal- 
ized and given a wide range of interpretation and 
application. With reference to visiting the sick— 
not the poor sick alone—Rabbi Huna said: ‘“‘Who- 
ever visits the sick takes away one-sixtieth from his 
sickness. Sixty people could cure him if they loved 
him as much as themselves.” 1° God Himself was 
represented as burying the dead and comforting the 
mourners and performing other acts of personal 
service.11 The patriarch Abraham, founder of the 
faith, was held up as the model for the care of 
strangers, his waiting at the table in an inconspic- 
uous manner on the three visitors being imitated by 
Gamaliel and other distinguished seers in later 
days.1* Again and again does the revered litera- 


°*Baba Kama 100a; Baba Mezia 30a; Sotah 14a; Pirke d’Rabbi 
Eliezer, Ch. 17; Moses of Przemysl, of. cit., Ch. 2; Isaac Aboab 
the Elder, of. cit., Sec. 205-221; Elijah of Smyrna, of. cit., Sec. 247. 

* Lev. Rabbah 34:1. Huna was a Babylonian of the 3d century. 

“ Sotah 14a and elsewhere. 

“Kiddushin 32b. Cf. also Gen. R. 60, Sec. 15: “Throughout 
Sarah’s life the doors of her tent were wide open to strangers.” 


96 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


ture of the Jews laud the practice of making the path 
of poor brides, particularly of orphan girls, easier, 
by providing them with dowries, the example of 
Rabbi Eleazar of Birta who diverted the marriage 
portion of his own daughter to equip a poor orphan 
boy and girl about to wed being cited for extraor- 
dinary praise.4* As an instance of the many pre- 
cepts urging the rendering of personal service by 
the way of extending loans free, the following pas- 
sage from the Midrash1* may be quoted: 

“Come and see! All the creations of God borrow one 
from the other: the day borrows from the night and the 
night from the day . . . the moon from the stars and the 
stars from the moon. . . . Those who charge interest 
say, as it were, to God: Why dost Thou not take from 
Thy world which contains human beings remuneration for 
the earth which Thou waterest, for the vegetation Thou 
producest, for the lights Thou kindlest, for the soul Thou 
breathest in, for the body Thou watchest? God answers: 
See how much I have lent without taking any 
interest!” . 


While Personal Service was mainly identified with 
the types of helpfulness just described, it was by no 
means limited to these. It included all conceivable 
forms of giving one’s self to the performance of 
kindly acts. It included, among other things, the 
rearing of orphans in one’s own home,’ attendance 


* Taanit 24a. 

“Exodus Rabbah 31:16. 

* R. Samuel bar Nachmani, explaining the meaning of the Scrip- 
tural verse “He that doeth righteousness at all times,” (Ps. 106:3) 


CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 97 


at weddings and other functions at homes of humble 
folk, and making garments for the poor.*® 

These teachings met with ready and widespread 
execution. The ‘‘Chaberim” or early Chasidic asso- 
ciations made the work of visiting the sick a special 
obligation on all their members,'* and in the Middle 
Ages the practice of cheering those confined to their 
homes through illness by the members of the con- 
gregation generally and by the lay officers in par- 
ticular was so common that, according to Israel 
Abrahams, pastoral visiting by the rabbis was super- 
fluous and therefore little done.1® 

There was much tenderness exercised in this work 
and likewise in personal ministrations to the dying. 
In the case of a death, in the smaller communities 
and, until the establishment of special burial socie- 
ties, in the larger centers, the entire Jewish popula- 
tion interrupted their work and attended the funeral. 
Affectionate and delicate attentions were accorded 
the bereaved; the first meal after the funeral (se‘udat 
habra’ah, ‘“‘meal of consolation”) was prepared and 
brought to them by their neighbors, and words of 
comfort were spoken to them by visitors.1® Taking 
said: “This refers to one who rears an orphan boy and girl in his 
home and marries them off.” Quoted by Moses Przemysl, of. cit., 
a jetael Abrahams treats the human side of our subject fully in 
his volume Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Ch. 17 and 18. 

“XK. Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Visiting the Sick.” 

* Op. cit., p. 3209f. 


“ Tbid.; Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Consolation” and 
J. D. Eisenstein, Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Mourning.” 


98 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


to heart the precept of R. Jose ben Jochanan of 
Jerusalem (2nd cent. B.c.), “Let thy house be 
open wide,” the generous and hospitable R. Huna 
threw open the doors of his home whenever he sat 
down to break bread, exclaiming, “‘Whoever wants, 
let him come and eat,’ 2° and numberless others 
acted in the same spirit throughout the era we are 
studying. Not without a touch of superstition, the 
presidents of the congregations (Parnasim) in Spain 
very commonly used the boards of the tables at which 
they had entertained poor people in their homes 
for their coffins.2! In fact, the entertainment of © 
strangers at private homes, especially at the Sab- 
bath meals (Haknasat Orchim), became well-nigh 
universal and continued to the present generation. 
People bestirred themselves to procure husbands for 
poor maidens and arranged for the details of the 
wedding and the equipment of the household. Spe- 
cial considerateness was exercised in extending loans 
to those in temporary distress, these being offered 
in the guise of business investments whenever neces- 
sary to save the pride of the person relieved, and all 
reminders, even unintentional ones, being scrupu- 
lously avoided. 

In the course of time societies and institutions 
arose to supplement or extend these various kinds 
of personal ministrations, but they never displaced 

*® Taanit 2ob. 


*On the authority of R. Bachya b. Asher (13th Cent. ?) as 
cited by Elijah Hakohen of Smyrna, of. cit. 308. 


CHARITY AND PERSONAL SERVICE 99 


them. “While institutionalized charity is of Jewish 
origin,’ says Dr. Kohler in his excellent essay, The 
Historical Development of Jewish Charity,?* “‘per- 
sonal service, personal care for, and personal interest 
in, the poor, ever remained the ‘Leitmotif’ of Jewish 
charity, which was always a beautiful combination 
of tender compassion and wise provision and help- 
fulness.” 


” Hebrew Union College and Other Addresses, p. 248. 


CHAPTER VII 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF AND ITS 
ADMINISTRATION 


Ir will be recalled that organized communal re- 
lief originated in connection with the early syna- 
gogues. In addition to the data already brought 
forth, attention is called to an instance recorded by 
Josephus,! of public administration of relief during 
emergencies in the first half of the first century A.D. 
At a time of national famine in Judea, Queen Helena 
of Adiabene, a convert to Judaism, sent a cargo of 
corn and dried figs from Alexandria and Cyprus to 
Jerusalem for free distribution among the sufferers. 
The measures then adopted included, among other 
things, the appointment of distinguished citizens to 
supervise the work.? Kohler ® considers this ‘‘the 
first historical evidence of the existence of a body 
of men at the head of the community having relief 
work in charge’ corresponding to the Gabbae 
Zedakah, the regular charity overseers. 

By the time of the composition of the Mishnah, 

* Antiquities XX, 2, Sec. 5. 

*Lehmann holds that stations or depots on the grounds of the 
ancient Temple for the reception and distribution of tithes existed 


at a time antedating Nehemiah, 7.¢., before 432 B.c. Op. cit., p. 22. 
* Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Charity and Charitable Institutions.” 


100 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF IOI 


as we have seen, the existence of a well organized 
system of relief is an established fact of old stand- 
ing, accepted as a matter of course. We proceed to 
describe how it was constituted and how it functioned 
then and in the later centuries of the period we are 
now treating. 

There were two public charity funds known as 
the Tamchui and the Kuppah, rules for the collec- 
tion and distribution of which are laid down by the 
Mishnah and elaborated with painstaking care by 
later authorities. The nature of these funds will 
be explained later. They became the standard com- 
munal relief funds during the Talmudic period and 
served as prototypes of all later communal relief 
treasuries. The supreme value attached to organ- 
ized relief, during the early centuries, is truly re- 
markable. Every community is enjoined to estab- 
lish and maintain at least one of these funds. There 
is every reason to believe that this enlightened re- 
quirement was universally fulfilled. We have the 
statement of Maimonides to this effect, as far as 
his own era was concerned. ‘‘We have never seen 
and never heard of a community in Israel which 
has not a Kuppah.” * Joseph Caro makes the very 
same observation for his time, adding that there are 
some places which do not have the Tamchui as a 
regular institution.® When in the course of the 
growth of a community the public funds reached 


*Mat. An. 9:3. 
“sLUurlaso? t: 


102 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


an advanced stage of differentiation or, what 
amounts to the same thing, when separate collections 
had to be made for different purposes, the obligation 
to contribute was extended to apply to all of these, 
the duties of new settlers in this respect being closely 
defined on the basis of length of residence. In 
Maimonides’ time there were four funds in some 
communities: the Kuppah and Tamchui, both food 
funds; a clothing fund (mosS aps) and a burial 
fund (maps apty). Residence of thirty days in 
a community obligated one to contribute to the 
Kuppah; of ninety days to the Tamchui; of six 
months to the clothing fund and of nine months to 
the burial fund.® 

Simple or complex, according to the size and needs 
of the community, there were public funds in every 
Jewish settlement of any considerable size to which 
the unfortunate could turn for succor in the hour 
of need. As time advanced, the sense of communal 
responsibility in this direction deepened, resulting in 
the establishment of comprehensive safeguards for 
the custodianship of the poor funds and in the elab- 
oration of a code of conduct that insured generous 
and delicate treatment to all those whom misfortune 
cast on the public bounty. 

The general miscellaneous charity fund seems to 
have answered all the ordinary calls on the commu- 
nity in the early centuries of our period. This fund, 


°*Mat. An. 9:12, based on Baba Batra 8a; Tur 256. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 103 


known as the Kuppah (nap) (chest or coffer) ,? had 
its beginnings probably in pre-Christian days and 
was already a well entrenched institution in the 
second century of the common era. It continued 
an uninterrupted career until modern days. It drew 
its main source of income from periodical collections 
made among the members of the community accord- 
ing to their reputed means. Each individual was 
permitted to determine the amount contributed, pro- 
vided it did not fall below the standard minimum 
which was one-tenth of his income, the administra- 
tors of charity being required by rabbinical law and 
urged by rabbinical ideals to let each person fix the 
size of his own gift, and being specially admonished 
against direct solicitation among the overgenerous, 
particularly those known to stint themselves for the 
sake of making extra large contributions.’ Over- 
seers were, however, armed with power to enforce 
the minimum of decency, in case such action was 
found to be necessary. But the aim was to make 
the contributions a matter of voluntary action and 


to use compulsion only as a last resort. It was an 


*“Kuppah” was the name of the community exchequer generally; 
the charity fund was distinguished from the general fund by the 
designation ‘“Kuppah shel zedakah,” but is often referred to also 
as simply “Kuppah.” ‘The meaning may be told from the context. 
In the 18th century and perhaps earlier, the terms “Zedakah” and 
“Kuppat Zedakah” are sometimes used freely in the constitutions 
and by-laws of congregations to include all funds for synagogue 
purposes. 

® Tur 248: “I will visit all who oppress him,” was interpreted by 
the rabbis to refer to those collectors who used rough methods with 
people naturally generous. 


104 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


admirable combination of the best elements of free 
will offering and assessment, with emphasis on the 
former.® Left to their own honor, the greater num- 
ber gave much more and with better grace than if 
they had been taxed specific quotas.1° What is more, 
individuals were stimulated to make extra donations 
to the Kuppah when the spirit moved them. The 
periodical collections, supplemented by occasional 
free will offerings, remained the chief and very 
likely the sole, source of income in most communi- 
ties for a long time, but additional sources grad- 
ually sprang up. One fertile field of income was 
furnished by the practice of offering donations for 
the communal charity box, side by side with dona- 
tions to the congregation and religious school, in 
connection with the reading of the Law in the syna- 
gogue, to participate in which it was deemed an 
honor to be “called up.” The Law being read pub- 
licly three times a week—Mondays, Thursdays and 
Saturdays—besides holydays, there was thus a 
steady inflow of donations *! accruing to the com- 
munal treasury of which the charity fund was a 


°“They (the collectors) take from each one whatever he sees 
fit to give and the amount levied on him.” Mat. An. 9:1. 

* The generosity of R. Eleazar of Birta ran to such extremes 
that the charity overseers felt constrained to avoid him for his own 
good. Taanit 24a. 

“These donations were voluntary, but the pressure of public 
opinion tended to render them in effect compulsory, and they were 
actually made so in very late times in certain communities, as in 
Amsterdam. Cf. Statutes of the German Congregation of Amster- 
dam, 1737, para. 61. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 105 


major beneficiary. Now and then donations of a 
princely character were made. An instance of such 
benevolence is the action of R. Paltiel of Kahira 
(Cairo) Egypt, in donating, when he was “called 
up to the Law,” on the Day of Atonement, 5000 
gold dinars (drachmae) for various purposes, of 
which 2000 were to be devoted for poor relief.?” 
When Paltiel died, his son Samuel donated 20,000 
drachmae for similar uses. The portions of these 
and similar donations destined for local uses were 
no doubt administered by the regular Overseers of 
the Poor. 

The charity fund also drew a portion of its in- 
come from donations made on occasions of personal 
or domestic joy or sorrow, such as weddings, cir- 
cumcisions and memorials.!2 In some communities, 
these voluntary gifts were later made mandatory.*4 
Still another flow of revenue for the poor chest 
emanated from various forms of fines imposed for 
the violation of communal regulations (Takkanot 
mpn) which were often diverted from general pur- 
poses to those of public relief.15 And there were, 
of course, extra collections for exceptional purposes 
—in effect, emergency levies, whenever the need 
arose. 


“ rooo for the poor of Jerusalem and 1000 for general purposes 
of charity to be distributed by various congregations. Neubauer, 
Medieval Jewish Chronicles Il, p. 128. 

* See Israel Abrahams, of. cit., p. 317. 

“Statutes of the German Congregation of Amsterdam (1737), 
Sec. 62 and 8o. 

* Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 54. 


106 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


A companion fund to the Kuppah, with a history 
less unbroken and a vogue less universal, was the 
Tamchui (plate or basket ‘nnin). This fund con- 
sisted originally of contributions in kind, though 
donations in money were not infrequent. In time 
the cash contributions equaled the donations in arti- 
cles 1° and, in populous and well-circumstanced com- 
munities, very likely displaced the latter altogether. 
From the original ready-to-use character of the 
Tamchui, its purpose may easily be inferred. It 
was a collection designed to relieve urgent calls 
that brooked no delay. Such calls came chiefly from 
transients and only secondarily from special un- 
looked-for needs that arose among the permanent 
settlers of the town or its environs. The distinction 
between the Kuppah and Tamchui may accordingly 
be summarized as follows: The Kuppah was the 
permanent and basic fund of the community which 
supplied the revenue for the support of the regular 
pensioners of the city or locality, while the Tamchui 
was the secondary and casual fund—the ‘‘call”’ fund 
—supplying special and immediate needs, mainly 
those of non-residents.17 Collections for the Kup- 
pah, functioning as it did for a fairly constant num- 
ber of protégés, were accordingly made once a week 


* This was already the case when the Shulchan Aruk was 
written. Cf. 261:1. 


‘Baba Batra 8b ym ways mErp ohiyn woyd ynon; Tur 256; 
Jerush. Peah 8:6. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 107 


or less often,® and distributed once a week, usually 
on the eve of the Sabbath, while the collections for 
the Tamchui were made every day and distributed 
every. day.” 

After the Talmudic period the Tamchui appears 
to have been merged with the Kuppah in some com- 
munities, the strict separation of the two funds hay- 
ing always been blurred by the permissibility of 
transference from one to the other.2° In Maimon- 
ides’ time, the Kuppah is already the only required 
public fund, while Caro specifically mentions the fact 
that in his days the Tamchui does not exist in many 
places. Israel Abrahams’ explanation of the decline 
and disappearance of the daily collection and distri- 
bution appears to be reasonable, namely, because of 
the rise of other agencies and methods that met more 
effectively the now greatly multiplied needs hitherto 
looked after by the T'amchui—the institution of 
communal inns or of lodging privileges at private 
inns at public expense, the formation of benevolent 
societies to care for and entertain resident and non- 
resident poor, and the reception of poor travelers 
in the homes of the well-to-do—these new and en- 
larged provisions being made necessary because of 
the vast increase of strangers and mendicants con- 

* The regulations of the German community of Amsterdam pro- 
vide for an annual tax assessed right before Passover and, if 
necessary, an extra tax later on. Statutes, Secs. 18 and 19. 

* Baba Batra 8b; Mat. An. 9:1; Tur 256; Shulchan Aruk 256:1; 


Jerush. Peah 8: 6. 
*® Baba Batra 8b; Tur 256; Shul. Ar. 256:14. 


108 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


sequent upon the attacks and expulsions following in 
the wake of the Crusades.*! Shelter as well as food 
had now to be provided on a systematic basis, so 
old procedure had to make way for new methods 
assuring economy of effort and adequacy of provi- 
sion. The Tamchui thus dropped into disuse more 
and more and at last disappeared. In the congre- 
gational constitutions and by-laws of the 15th, 16th, 
17th and 18th centuries, it is no longer mentioned. 

The administration of the public funds formed 
an integral part of the general administration of 
the affairs of the community and was as a rule inti- 
mately connected with the management of the con- 
gregation 7? around which latter all communal affairs 
revolved. The directors or supervisors of the charity 
endeavors—the Overseers of the Poor, Gabbaim 
(n’xay literally, collectors or treasurers)—were al- 
most invariably also members of the Boards of the 
synagogue, to whom they were responsible and with 
the President of which, the Parnas (pmp Sustainer), 
they co-operated. This arrangement persisted until 
the need for separate associations to provide for 
special types of wards developed, which happened 
wherever the community population grew large and 
the problems confronting it became complex. For 
special reasons which will be described later, this 
differentiation did not take place among the Jews, 
with rare exceptions, until the 15th century, some 


* Ob. Ci, De SK 
™Schiirer: Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes II, p. 441. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 109g 


time after the corresponding development took 
place among their Christian neighbors. With the 
approach to modern conditions, the charity admin- 
istration is gradually detached from the congrega- 
tion and finally becomes altogether dissociated from 
ecclesiastical control. 

The calibre of the charity Overseers, whose num- 
ber in Talmudic times varied from time to time, with 
three as the standard—two of them acting as gath- 
erers of the fund and all three as apportioners and 
distributors ?3—-was of the very highest. The work 
of relief was regarded as of paramount importance 
and was never delegated to second-rate officials, nor 
were the Overseers of a type that required remu- 
neration. The Jewish population in any given city 
being limited and concentrated in certain streets or 
in a certain locality, the duties falling to the officers 
could be adequately discharged without paid help, 
while at the same time, the highest intelligence and 
greatest authority could be brought to bear both on 
the assembling and the disposition of the income. 
There is no evidence to show that the needy ever 
suffered from any neglect at the hands of the Over- 
seers, but on the contrary, we have abundant testi- 
mony to prove that the most scrupulous care was 
exercised in handling every case with tender and 
painstaking consideration. The Overseers, like the 


*This was the standardized number for the Kuppah; in the 
case of the Tamchui, three collected and three distributed. Bab. 
Bat. 8b, followed by all the codes, 


110 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Presidents of congregations, were chosen by elec- 
tion *4 or by general consensus of opinion (later 
on by prescribed methods of election) from amongst 
the most representative men of the community, men 
who usually combined wealth with learning and 
achievement, and a strict sense of justice.2> Until 
the time when written constitutions for communities 
became general—17th century—the administrators 
served for indefinite periods, that is to say, as long 
as there was mutual satisfaction between the com- 
munity and themselves; but they could be deposed 
for malfeasance in office.2° From the 15th century 
on, perhaps even from the 14th, in the highly organ- 
ized communities governed by carefully planned reg- 
ulations, the term for which the Overseers of charity 
were elected was limited to a year or two. 

No check was kept on the integrity or motives of 
the Overseers, and unless they proved themselves 
unworthy, they were left entirely to their own honor. 
But they were expected to keep themselves above 
suspicion,” going in twos when receiving moneys, 
sitting as a committee of three when making distri- 
butions, and otherwise avoiding all semblance of 
favoritism, particularly towards poor relatives. 


** At a great synod, attended by 150 French and German rabbis 
towards the end of the 12th century, a regulation was passed re- 
quiring that presidents and provosts be elected in an open manner 
by the majority of the members of the congregation. Graetz: 
History of the Jews, Ill, p. 377 (Eng. Ed.). 

* Tur 256. 

* Shul. Ar. 257:6. 

* Baba Batra 8b, 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF III 


While it was not the custom to require audit of the 
Overseers °° until the eighteenth century, they were 
expected as early as the 14th century to present a 
financial statement voluntarily.2® The Administra- 
tors were expected to, and did, restore from their 
own pockets inadvertently lost moneys belonging to 
the charity fund.®° 

The beneficent activities of the Overseers were 
undefined in scope, but they embraced all manner of 
relief, from supplying the elementary necessities of 
food and clothing and shelter to the rearing of 
orphans, and the providing of marriage portions 
for poor brides.*! They included personal visitation 
of the sick, and the furnishing of free medical treat- 
ment as well as the rendering of comforts to the 
dying and the bereaved and the presentation of a 
burial plot and burial expenses free. They further 
embraced the education of poor children with spe- 
cial thought to training them for a useful occupa- 
tion. Inthe way of preventive measures, loans were 
extended and people were set up in business. The 
records show a rich and steady flow of private relief 


*Shul. Ar. 257:2. 

*” Tur 257. Israel Abrahams does not trace the habit of render- 
ing a voluntary financial statement back far enough—he names the 
16th cent. Op. cit. p. 315. 

* Cf. Abodah Zarah 17b. R. Chanina b. Teradyon erroneously 
diverted money belonging to the general charity fund into the 
Purim fund and made it good from his own pocket. Cf. also 
Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 60, 61, 69. 

* Cf. Taanit 24a, where the experience of the charity overseers 
in making a collection for the marriage portion of an orphan boy 
and an orphan girl is recounted. 


112 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


in these same directions, particularly in the matter 
of tender solicitude for orphans and widows and in 
the field of prevention, but, above all, in alleviating 
the suffering and sorrow incident to sickness and 
bereavement. But the Overseers were there to ex- 
tend the organized aid of the community, amplify- 
ing personal ministrations and assuring intelligent 
continuity. 

Such was the high character of the Overseers and 
so did the committee method ** of transacting its 
work of collecting and distribution make for fair- 
ness and respect, that it was not felt necessary to 
set bounds to the amounts they might allot any given 
cases until towards the end of our period,*®* nor 
otherwise to put limitations upon their discretion. 
But there were well-established principles relating to 
the standards of donation and apportionment as 
well as to degrees of urgency, which had the effect 
of giving the right direction to the efforts of the 
Overseers, and what is more, Jewish law required 
the complete stoppage of charity through the Over- 
seers whenever these proved unworthy, and the sub- 
stitution of direct giving in its place until such time 
as the administration became acceptable to the 
community.*4 

** No levy on the community could be made by less than 2 per- 
sons, but if the collection had already been made, it was allowed 
to stand. Tur 256. 

* That is, until the era of written constitutions. 


*“One should not give to the public charity fund unless he knows 
that the one in charge of it is trustworthy, wise and understands 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 113 


The great satisfactions, religious and ethical, 
which the Overseers derived from their tasks were 
somewhat tempered by the occasional mutterings 
and ingratitude of certain carping and captious ben- 
eficiaries. Generally speaking, the needy were to 
be taken at their word on the subject of their own 
wants, and their allotment fixed accordingly, as we 
shall see; and there seems to be no doubt of the 
contented and grateful reaction of the vast majority 
of those who received help. Nevertheless, there 
were not wanting unreasonable dependents, who, 
taking advantage of the inalienable right to assist- 
ance assured by Jewish law and practice to all, made 
matters hard for the distributors of the public 
bounty. But the Overseers schooled themselves to 
patience and serenity, under these provocations, 
making allowance for the faults of their protégés 
in consideration of the hard lot of the latter and 
never losing sight of the essential merit of their 
efforts in relieving misery. Indeed, they came to 
look upon the serene endurance of such criticism as 
an added merit. As an illustration of their disre- 
gard of criticism, as long as they were doing their 
work according to their best lights, we may cite the 
case of R. Liezer, chronicled in the Jerusalem Tal- 
how to administer it in a straightforward way.” ‘Tur 249. Also: 
“But if the Administrators are not wise and fit men, they are set 
aside and may not collect charity at all; and if it is impossible to 
set them aside, one is prohibited from giving charity through them, 


for thus said the Sages, ‘One should not give a farthing to the 
public fund unless a man of wisdom has charge of it.’” Tur 256. 


114 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


mud. Upon returning home one day, this high- 
minded man, then acting in the dual capacity of 
President of the community and charity Overseer, 
asked what had happened during his absence. He 
was told that a group of people had been there, had 
feasted, and prayed for him. He said, “This will 
not procure me a good reward.” Some time later, 
again after an absence, he made a similar inquiry. 
He was informed that another company of poor had 
visited the house, eating and drinking and ending by 
abusing him. Whereupon he said, “In this case I 
will have a good reward.” Similarly, R. Akiba, 
advised by his family not to accept the position of 
Parnas (president-administrator) to save himself 
from abuse, declared he would accept for the very 
reason that it would expose him to abuse.®® Sum- 
ming up the spirit pervading the theory and prac- 
tice of the authorities that preceded him, Joseph 
Caro formulates this dictum: “Charity administra- 
tors should not mind being insulted by the poor; 
for their merit will be so much the greater.” °° 
The question may here be pertinently raised 
whether the universal recognition of the right of the 
poor to assistance of which the poor themselves were 
fully aware did not make for a certain amount of 
unreasonable captiousness and of inappreciation on 
the part of the latter. Very likely it did, although 
we know that even where such right is not conceded, 


** Jerush. Peah 8:6. 
* Shul. Ar. 257:7. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF I15 


ingratitude often exists. But if a choice has to be 
made between announcing a great principle of jus- 
tice subject to a modicum of collateral abuse in its 
operation, on the one hand, and the adoption of an 
indefensible principle for social amelioration with 
a reduction of incidental abuses, on the other, can 
there be any question as to which should be pre- 
ferred? Broadly considered, the Jewish idea and 
its actual pragmatic results in this direction were the 
fundamentally correct ones. Better the eternal bed- 
rocks of equality and self-respect for all, with pau- 
perization for a few, than inequality and humilia- 
tion for whole classes and a smaller percentage of 
incidental abuses. At all events, such, we think, 
would be the choice of a modern sociologist. 

Once having set up as the administrators of the 
public relief fund men who measured up to the high 
qualifications of that ofice—‘‘trustworthy, wise, and 
full of understanding, who would give detailed at- 
tention to the case of each poor person according 
to his needs’ **—the procedure for the relief of 
dependents took the following general lines. The 
Commissioners of Charity met and on the basis of 
their knowledge of the situation, estimated roughly 
the total needed. The residents of the community 
were then assessed according to their reputed means, 
orphans *8 being exempted as a class, while women 


"Tur 256. 

* Orphans were, however, permitted to donate something for the 
sake of enjoying a good name. Bab. Bat. 8a; Tur 248; Shulchan 
Aruk 248:3. 


116 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


and servants were given the option of contributing 
a small sum or nothing.®® Two of the Commission- 
ers—no less—then made the rounds of the com- 
munity once a week or at less frequent periods and 
collected the sums designated and such voluntary 
additions as people chose to make. Where the Tam- 
chui or Daily Distribution existed, a collection was 
made every day. ‘There were no amounts speci- 
fied for this fund—a cash and kind fund, presum- 
ably for outside poor—and so still greater counsel 
was needed for handling it; hence both its col- 
lection and its distribution had to be super- 
vised by no less than three.*®? Where there 
was no Tamchui, the Kuppah was called upon for 
urgent cases of want. If the regular collec- 
tions did not suffice, special emergency collections 
were made. 

The individual needs of those requiring aid were 
then taken up for consideration. The redemption of 
captives, a sad but common necessity in those troub- 
lous days when piracy and banditry were frequent 
occurrences and the Jews were the favorite play- 
things of abductors, respectable as well as disreputa- 
ble, had by law and custom the first claim on the 
public relief fund. Women had priority over men 
and, with the characteristic love and reverence for 
learning which was ingrained in the nature of the 
Jew, the relief of scholars preceded the relief of the 


"Tur 248. 
“ Bab. Bat. 8b; Mat. An. 9:2; Tur 256; Shulchan Aruk 256:13. 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 117 


untutored.*! The stilling of hunger came before the 
satisfaction of any other want, next in order being 
the relief of those needing clothes. Then came the 
relief of extra-physical wants—the supplying of the 
wherewithal for poor brides and grooms to get mar- 
ried and establish a household, the furnishing of 
necessary equipment and capital for business pur- 
poses, and so forth. Gentiles were helped from the 
public benevolent fund with a view to friendly rela- 
tions.42, The rule was “‘to give to everyone who 
stretched out his hand,” 7.e., everyone in need.** 

In the case of personal relief, people were admon- 
ished to seek out those in want, lest suffering result 
in consequence of pride. The more preoccupied pub: 
lic dispensers of aid could not often permit them- 
selves this ideal method of detecting poverty, al- 
though all possible devices for sparing the poor 
embarrassment were employed, such, for instance, as 
the drawing of billets for meal tickets by the Admin- 
istrator and not by the poor themselves, ordained 
for the community of Treviso, Italy, in the 15th cen- 
tury, by Rabbi Juda Minz, in order to spare the 
feelings of the transient poor, notwithstanding the 
knowledge that this procedure encouraged begging.** 


“Horayot 13a. jm25 op oon Wwdn 7M); Shul. Ar. 251:9. 

“Tur 251; Shul. Ar. 251; both based on Gittin 61a. For a fuller 
discussion of aid to non-Jews, see chapter “Miscellaneous Topics,” 
under the heading, “Jewish Aid to Non-Jews,” p. 107. 

95 pom Siord ye oenpn 52 Tur 2sr. 

“Responsa of Rabbi Juda Minz, Sec. 7, cited also by I. 
Abrahams, of. cit., p. 308. 


118 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


As a rule, the wants of the poor had to be made 
known to the Overseers. 

In the case of an application for food, investiga- 
tion was dispensed with, in fact, forbidden, but in 
the case of a request for clothing or anything else 
that called for less urgency, an investigation had 
to be made, except in the event that the applicant 
was known to the Overseers to be worthy and honor- 
able, when a request for clothing was also granted 
without investigation.*® It appears, however, that 
the purpose of the investigation in any case was to 
establish the reliability of the applicant rather than 
the precise nature and amount of his needs. There 
happens to be little information recorded in the mat- 
ter of ‘follow-up’ work, but the fact that most of 
the resident poor received regular subsidies coupled 
with the ever-urged principle to make the dependent 
self-supporting, points to the use of enlightened and 
wide-awake measures of treatment, with rehabilita- 
tion as the constant goal in view. 

With respect to the nature and quantity of relief 
extended, or the quotas apportioned the various de- 
pendents, which subject constitutes a major theme 
in all the literature on Jewish charity, it is to be 
noted that the Biblical injunction to give to each 
person in want precisely what he needs (wx ony 4 
% rom Deut. 15:8) was accepted and adopted as 
the general standard of action. Jacob ben Asher, 


* Baba Batra ga; Tur 251; Shul. Ar. 251:10; Matteh Mosheh, 
Ch. 4, 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 119 


drawing his inspiration from older sources, frames 
the rule of action thus: “If he is hungry and needs 
food, he must be fed; if naked and in need of ap- 
parel, he must be clothed; if he lacks household 
utensils, these must be secured for him; and even if 
he has been used to ride a horse and to have a ser- 
vant wait upon him when he was well-to-do (having 
become impoverished), a horse and servant must be 
provided for him; and so on with every one, accord- 
ing to his needs.*® ‘This is a surprisingly high stand- 
ard of relief, measuring up to, if not exceeding, the 
most generous standards prevailing among advanced 
social workers today. It must remain an open ques- 
tion whether this standard was always or even gen- 
erally lived up to, or merely remained an ideal to be 
striven after. It is fairly certain, however, that this 
standard was well-nigh approximated through the 
combined efforts of public and private relief, the 
former, as a rule, encouraging the play of personal 
generosity but standing good for any deficiencies up 
to the point of adequacy as determined by the de- 
pendent’s habitual standards of living. The charity 
officials made it their business to co-ordinate the 
efforts of privates, as far as they could ascertain 
them, with the measures adopted by themselves as 
heads of the organized endeavors of the locality or 
city, in the treatment of every case, with a view 
to avoiding duplication and at the same time bring- 
ing about adequacy of relief in accordance with the 
“Tur 250. 


120 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


principles enunciated above, 7.e., approximately to 
restore the family or individual in trouble to its 
accustomed social status. 

The bitterness of eating the bread of charity even 
under the most favorable circumstances among a 
people naturally given to industry and devoted to 
ideals of self-dependence was thought to be sufh- 
cient spur to drive the recipients of charity to ener- 
getic efforts to earn their own living, and no fears 
were entertained lest the satisfaction of their wants 
beyond the supply of dire necessities would lead them 
to be contented with remaining beneficiaries of the 
bounty of others all their lives. If this natural prod 
was not strong enough by itself to keep the poor self- 
reliant, the external pressure brought to bear on 
them to make themselves self-supporting served as 
a powerful auxiliary. At all events, the welfare of 
the poor was the uppermost concern; other consid- 
erations had to take their chance. The Overseers 
accordingly guided themselves in making their allot- 
ments from the community treasury by what was 
being done for the given family or individual by 
privates. They first waited to see what private gen- 
erosity would do. If enough to satisfy the minimum 
required by the case in question was forthcoming, 
i.e.. enough to answer the dependent’s needs accord- 
ing to his old standard of living, they took no fur- 
ther steps in the premises; but if not, they made an 
appropriation sufficient to meet his actual needs and, 
if the state of the treasury permitted, amplified this 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 121 


appropriation with enough to bring him up to the 
level of his former social status (‘‘according to his 
dignity” ynas5). 

While the amounts allotted from the public treas- 
ury were thus flexible, varying with the particular 
need and the available resources, there are never- 
theless well-defined minimal quotas for certain spe- 
cific situations which are of interest to the student. 
The original norm laid down in the Mishnah,*? and 
cited approvingly by Maimonides,*® permitted any- 
one to accept charity for living expenses from pri- 
vates as long as his unentailed capital (exclusive of 
his house, z.e., his shelter and inexpensive eating uten- 
sils and bedding) consisted of less than 200 Zuz *° 
(about 50 shekels, or $25) which were non-produc- 
tive, or of 50 Zuz that were productive, i.e., bring- 
ing in profit. Jacob ben Asher,®*°® writing in the 14th 
century, while citing this measure as a desirable one, 
already calls attention to the newer public opinion 
which looked with favor upon more liberal minimal 
quotas in view of the increased expenditures—*'the 
high cost of living,’ as we would say—and which 
encouraged a man to take charity until he had enough 
capital to support himself from the profit. He there- 


“Peah 8:8-9. 

* Mat. An. 9:13. 

“ Isaac Luria explains fancifully why 200 was set as the standard 
—because the Hebrew word for charity (Mp3¥) is equal nu- 
merically to 199. Quoted in Meil Zedakah, Sec. 83. Of course, 
it is to be borne in mind that this sum had much greater com- 
parative value—perhaps five or ten times as much—in those days. 

* Tar 263: 


r22 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


fore concludes by laying down the rule that the def- 
inition of sufficiency all depends on the place and the 
time, i.e., on the standards of living prevailing and 
the special circumstances existing. Joseph Caro, in 
the 16th century, takes the same position as Jacob 
ben Asher—more explicitly, in fact—saying ‘“There 
are some who hold that these standards refer only 
to those (Talmudic) days, but that in these times, 
a man may take charity until he has enough capital 
to support himself and his household from the profit; 
and this appears reasonable.” °! Be it noted that 
although these standards apply in the first instance 
only to private charity, they also hold good in the 
field of public charity whenever private help is not 
to be had. While preceding authorities do not make 
this point clear, the Shulchan Aruk explicitly so 
directs. It is the duty of the community in its organ- 
ized capacity to provide for the poor to the point 
of sufficiency if and when relief from privates falls 
short. ‘he individual must call the attention of the 
constituted authorities to the poor person’s case and 
contribute his share. If there are no other Jewish 


*Shul. Ar. 253:2. Cf. also the following opinion quoted by 
Menachem Recanati, Piske Halakot, Sec. 59: “Rabbenu Jehudah 
ben Rabbenu Kallonymos, father of Rabbi Eliezer of Worms, asked 
Rabbenu Ephraim, ‘If one has 200 Zuz, has he a right to take 
charity or no? Does it resemble the gleanings, the forgotten 
sheaves and the corners of the field (in which case one that has 
200 Zuz cannot take any)?’ He replied, ‘It all depends on his 
income and the income of his family and his habit of living. But 
if he is a single man he should not take any, since one that has 
food for two meals is not allowed to take from the Tamchui.’ ” 
(This refers only to charity from public funds.) 


GENERAL PUBLIC RELIEF 123 


inhabitants, the entire obligation rests on the indi- 
vidual, if his means allow; if not, to the extent that 
his mean allow.®? 

Special wants—household utensils, burial ex- 
penses, and so forth—are likewise provided for, the 
initiative falling on private charity and the final 
guarantee resting on public bounty. No definite 
standards are set forth but generous assistance to 
meet the needs in question are ordained. There are, 
however, two needs for which allotments are spe- 
cifically fixed and which deserve special mention be- 
cause they reveal the high value set by Jewish people 
in all ages on married life as the indispensable me- 
dium of happiness and service. It is provided that 
all brides in straitened circumstances are entitled to 
a bounty of 50 Zuz from the public relief fund and, 
when the state of the treasury permits, to as much 
more as is becoming to their social station.6? We 
shall see how zealously this injunction was carried 
out from the fact that special societies for providing 
poor brides with money for a trousseau and a “‘nest- 
ego’’ were instituted and became common in the lat- 
ter part of our period. The other allotment stip- 
ulated is that for a male orphan who wishes to get 
married. It is ordained in the Talmud, on the basis 
of the Biblical passage (‘“‘to give one the measure 
of his need’ —Deut. 15:8) that the administrators 
of the public funds present him with a homestead, 


® Shulchan Aruk 250:1. 
Tur 250; Shul. Ar. 250:2; Matteh Mosheh, Ch. 5. 


124 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


bedding and utensils, and secure a wife for him.*4 
The duty to give orphans a fair start in the struggle 
for existence led later on to the formation of special 
societies for this purpose. Orphan girls were pro- 
vided for like other poor brides and enjoyed other 
marks of consideration besides.®® 

Ket. 67a; Mat. An. 7:4; Matteh Mosheh, Ch. 5. 

Mat. An. 8:16. They were to receive 60 dinarii and if the 


state of the public treasury permitted, more, “according to their 
social station.” 


CHAPTER VIII 
SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION 


Tue laudation of work and industry by the Jew- 
ish religion in all stages of its long history ruled out 
the choice of voluntarily assumed poverty as an 
ideal. “Sweet is the sleep of the laboring man,”’ 
wrote Ecclesiastes (5:12). Sentiments of this kind 
abound in the book of Proverbs and in other parts 
of the Bible. Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi 
Judah, taught, “All study of the Torah that is not 
accompanied by work must in the end be futile and 
become the cause of sin.” 1 [he Talmud repeats 
this admonition in different words again and again 
and lays it down as a duty for a father to teach his 
son some occupation. Poverty is classed as a mis- 
fortune, not a desirable, let alone an ideal status. 

More than that, the generous individual is warned 
against indulging in such self-sacrifice for the sake of 
charity as to impoverish himself and come to want. 
“If a poor man comes,” says Maimonides, “and 
asks for help ‘sufficient for his need’ (Deut. 15:7), 
and the giver cannot afford to give him all he asks, 
he should give whatever he can afford. And how 


*Mishnah Abot 2:2. 
125 


126 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


much is that? Up to a fifth of his possessions— 
that is the desirable interpretation of the command; 
or a tenth, which represents the medial standard. 
Less than that betokens an evil eye (a mean 
SDIrit} ve 

Accordingly, there never arose among Jews any 
class of persons who, like St. Francis of Assisi and 
his followers in the Christian Church, adopted a 
regimen of voluntary penury as a religious ideal 
and actual mode of existence. Judaism’s strong dis- 
approval of self-chosen destitution kept the number 
of dependents down to small proportions. Aside 
from bona fide dependents, only the indolent and 
the impostors sought assistance. 

Of the latter two classes there were always con- 
siderable numbers. They took advantage of the 
accepted principle of the claim of the poor to relief 
as a right, not a favor, proclaimed in the Bible and 
in the post-Biblical authorities. Begging from house 
to house and from city to city was not uncommon 
and there sprang up a class of professional beggars, 
unlike the mendicants in the Christian world, who 
pressed the generous for gifts as a matter of justice 
due to them. They did not regard themselves as 
paupers nor act as such, but as self-respecting people 


*Mat. An. 7:5. Cf. also Shul. Ar. 249:1, where Caro adds: 
“Now this fifth referred to here means the fifth of his capital 
during the first year; thereafter a fifth of his annual profits.” 
These rulings were based on the Talmud. They were promul- 
gated at the Synod of Usha, in Galilee, c. 140 Aw. Ket. 50a and 
67b. In a legacy, one can give away as much as he wants, accord- 
ing to Moses Isserles, Note to Shul. Ar., loc. cit. 


SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION 127 


entitled to the bounty of their benefactors. In later 
years they became known as ‘“‘Schnorrers.”’ They 
survived until recent times. Israel Zangwill de- 
scribes their habits, with the curious phases of com- 
ical impertinence that characterized their demands, 
in his charming book, The King of Schnorrers.® 

While begging did not constitute any grave prob- 
lem among the Jews and did not ever assume the 
serious proportions it reached in Christian commu- 
nities, such, for instance, as it attained in England; 4 
while at times it impressed outsiders as virtually non- 
existent,® it was nevertheless a standing occurrence. 
The problem was handled by enlightened regulation. 
The beggars were always treated in a kindly manner. 
They were never publicly degraded as was, for in- 
stance, done in England by the Poor Law which at 
one period required the letter “P’’ to be branded 
on their bodies.* ‘They were always allowed some- 
thing save when exceptional local economic dis- 
tress prevailed.? hey were always accorded at least 


*For a fuller characterization, see Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. 
“Schnorrer.” 

*cCf. Sir George Nicholls: 4 History of the English Poor Law. 
3 vols., London, 1898-99, and P. J. Aschrott: English Poor Law 
System, London, 1888. 

*Julian the Apostate declared the Jews had no beggars. Cf. 
Kohler, “Zum Kapitel,” etc., in Berliner’s Festschrift, Berlin, 1903, 
Pp. 202. 

* Cf. Nicholls, op. cit. See below, Chap. 12, Note 4. 

*In Posen, in 1672, because of hard times in the community non- 
resident poor were prohibited from begging and denied free trans- 
portation. A. Heppner and J. Herzberg: Aus Vergangenheit und 
Gegenwart der Juden und der jiid. Gemeinden in den Posener 
Landen (Koschmin-Bromberg, 1909), p. 79. 


128 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


food for the day and lodging, but only small money 
gifts were recommended to private donors.’ In 
most communities certificates had to be obtained 
by transients to permit them to ask for assistance. 
Three instances of widely separated communities 
may be cited. The statutes of the Avignon commu- 
nity in 1558 fixed one sou and two meals as the 
allowance for non-resident poor not bearing cer- 
tificates, and three sous or more, up to six, for those 
bearing certificates.2 The Council of Four Lands 
(Poland-Lithuania), at a Synod in 1623, adopted 
the following regulations: In order to guard against 
imposition, itinerant beggars must not be provided 
with more traveling fare than is required to get 
from one place to the next. They are not permitted 
to stay more than twenty-four hours in any one 
place. ‘hey must not be allowed to preach in public 
unless provided with a letter of authorization from 
the head of the district rabbinical court (Bet Din). 
The people of the environs of Brest-Litovsk (Brisk) 
must require a letter from the head of the Bet Din 
of Grodno, etc. A list of large cities is here given 
and their dependent towns and neighborhoods are 
specifically named, showing a carefully worked out 
zoning system for the regulation of itinerant beg- 
ging. No injustice should be done to those transient 
poor who are actually seeking out relatives to help 


* Maimonides, Mat. An. 7:7. 
°R. deMaulde: “Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Pape au 
Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 9, 1884, p. 120. 


SELF-SUPPORT AND PAUPERIZATION 129 


them. But people are otherwise admonished not to 
allow themselves to yield to sentimental pity.1° And, 
finally, we have the testimony of Lancelot Addison 
(father of Joseph Addison), concerning the Jews of 
Barbary, based on personal observation and recorded 
in a book written in 1675. “They also have their 
Kibbuz or Letters of Collection, by which the Indi- 
gent has liberty to go from Synagogue to Syna- 
gogue, to receive the Benevolence of their country- 
men.’ ... These must be shown to the chief Mas- 
ter of the Synagogue. If he approves, he appoints 
a day, and a collection is usually made at the door 
of the Synagogue. ‘By these letters also the neces- 
sitous Father raiseth Portions for his Daughters.” 1 


* Samuel P. Rabbinowitz, Extracts from Regulations of Council 
of Four Lands, Regulation No. 87. In Hebrew periodical Keneset 
Israel, Vol. II (1887), p. 30f. 

“The Present State of the Jews, London (1675), 3d. Ed., 1682, 
Ch. XXV, pp. 212-214. 


CHAPTER IX 
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS 


WE shall discuss briefly in this chapter several 
unconnected topics which we found it inconvenient 
to treat elsewhere. 


The Tithe 


The tithe in Biblical times was a compulsory tax 
of one tenth of the produce of the soil and (in one 
case) also of the increase of cattle. There were 
two ecclesiastical tithes and one tithe for the poor 
(Maaser Ani). This latter came every third year. 
It is probable that a portion of the Second Tithe 
(Maaser Sheni), was also devoted to the poor. 

With the fall of the Temple the ecclesiastical 
tithes were automatically discontinued. The Chris- 
tian Church and state took over the institution of 
the Tithe. In England and elsewhere it became a 
source of abuse. 

The tithe for the poor appears to have lingered 
on in Palestine after the fall of the state. Rabbi 
Judah Ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishnah (c.200 


A.D.), in a typically hyperbolical oriental declaration, 
130 


MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS 131 


held that one who eats fruit of which the tithe for 
the poor has not been appropriated, is deserving of 
death. (Pesikta d Rab Kahana XI, 99 a, b; Jer. 
Kid. 2:9, Krotoshin edition.) 

The agricultural tithe for the poor led to the cus- 
tom of tithing earnings from other sources. Most 
authorities held this to be obligatory, but some con- 
sidered it optional.! According to Israel Abrahams, 
who has made the most thorough study of Jewish life 
in the Middle Ages,? the tithe, in practice, remained 
a voluntary undertaking and no congregation seems 
to have attempted to enforce its payment. Left to 
voluntary action, it must have been fairly common. 
As a personal and family institution, it was in vogue 
in Germany and Spain in the 14th century. Abra- 
hams cites several interesting instances of its observ- 
ance. Eleazar the Levite of Mayence (d. 1357), 
in his Ethical Will to his children charges them to 
“give in charity an exact tithe of their property.” 
The most striking case is the practice instituted in 
his family by the famous Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel, 
father of Jacob ben Asher, author of the ‘Four 
Rows.”’ His example in voluntarily giving a tithe to 
the poor influenced his congregation in Germany to 
do likewise. Settling later in Toledo, he and his 
sons continued the practice. In 1346, they under- 
took to perpetuate the custom as a permanent fam- 


* Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Tithe.” 

* Op. cit., pp. 319-321. We borrow freely here from Israel 
Abrahams’ excellent description of the documents referred to in 
this section. 


132 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


ily obligation. They entered into a formal agree- 
ment, as follows: 

“We, the undersigned, accept an ordinance which we 
have in the handwriting of our father R. Asher, and which 
he worded thus: Hear, my son, the instruction of thy 
father, and do not forget the law of thy mother. Seeing 
that in the land whence we are come hither to Spain, our 
fathers and our fathers’ fathers were wont to set aside for 
charitable purposes a tithe of all their business profits, in 
accordance with our sages’ prescription, we hereby undertake 
to follow in their footsteps, and have received upon our- 
selves the obligation to devote to the poor one-tenth of our 
profits earned in business, derived from the loan of capital 
or from commercial undertakings. ‘Three-fourths of this 
tithe we will hand over to a kuppah (or general fund), 
which shall be administered by two treasurers. “This duty 
we undertake for ourselves and our children.” 


It is expressly stated further on in this agreement 
that this tithe is to include property and income from 
every source. The signatures of the next genera- 
tion were later appended. The practice had become 
a tradition in the family.® 


Defectives 


Defectives, particularly the blind, were treated 
like other dependents, with consideration and sym- 
pathy. The deaf and the simple-minded are usually 
classed with minors as to legal status and general 
treatment. There was considerable understanding of 


*The Ethical Will of R. Jehudah ben Asher and his brother 
Jacob. Ed. by S. Schechter, Pressburg, 1885. 


MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS 133 


the influence of heredity. The insane were looked 
upon as normal persons suffering from temporary 
aberrations. 

No special provisions were made for them.* 


Delinquents 


Criminals and immoral persons called forth little 
sympathy. As a rule they were treated sternly. 
There are signs of a softening attitude in the 18th 
century. A ruling as to which city was obligated 
to take care of an unmarried mother reveals an 
absence of harshness.° One authority allowed people 
to extend kindnesses to excommunicated persons. 


Jewish Aid to Non-Jews 
The Talmud laid down the following rule (Git- 


tin 61a) concerning the treatment of poor non- 
Jews: ‘Poor Gentiles should be supported along 
with poor Jews; the Gentile sick should be visited 
along with the Jewish sick; and their dead should be 
buried along with the Jewish dead, in order to fur- 
ther peaceful relations (mipne darke shalom.)” 
This rule is cited by the codes and became the stand- 
ard for all subsequent rabbinical legislation. 

The point has been frequently raised as to what 


*Joel Blau: “The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature,” in 
Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, Bloch Pub. Co., New York, 


1915. 
*Ishmael Ha-Kohen of Modena, Responsa (NOX yut nw) 
Part Il, Séc.+117. 


134 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


precisely is meant by the Hebrew phrase ‘“mipne 
darke shalom” (which we have translated “‘in order 
to further peaceful relations’). It has been inter- 
preted by unfriendly critics to mean “with a view 
to avoiding the enmity of the non-Jewish popula- 
tion.” Even if the intended meaning of this precept, 
that is, even if the motive animating Jewish aid to 
non-Jews were based on considerations of expediency, 
the standard on the Jewish side would have been 
much higher than the reciprocal treatment of Jews 
at the hands of Gentiles warranted. Except possibly 
now and then during an epidemic,® the Christian 
world during the Middle Ages excluded Jews from 
their area of neighborly help and good will. Their 
sick were not admitted to Christian hospitals,* and 
their poor gave their non-Jewish neighbors no 
concern. 

But Jacob Z. Lauterbach, in his exhaustive study 
on “The Attitude of the Jew towards the Non- 
Jew,” ® effectually shatters this grosser interpreta- 
tion of the signification of the phrase in question and 
the purport of the Talmudic precept. He demon- 


°During an epidemic which invaded the ghetto in Rome in the 
year 1556, two Cardinals established a lazaret in the ghetto and 
stationed a Christian physician there, the Jewish physicians having 
been brought low by disease. This work of mercy is one of the 
very few pleasant inter-religious episodes of that era. A. Berliner: 
Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Frankfort a. Main, 1893, Vol. 2, 
Pp. 58-59. 

"See below, “Hospitals and Free Medical Care,” p. 155. 

*“In Year Book, Central Conference of Amer. Rabbis, XXXI 


(1921), pp. 201-204. 


MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS U5 


strates conclusively that the phrase ‘‘mipne darke 
shalom,” as used in various places in the Talmud, 
“is a positive ideal and a definite tendency to pro- 
mote good will among men.” He cites examples of 
its use in connection with laws and regulations ex- 
clusively pertaining to relations between Jew and 
Jew, where it certainly cannot have the sinister 
meaning read into it by some. He cites many other 
services of kindness towards Gentiles enjoined by 
the Talmud on Jews, and quotes the broad appli- 
cation of these injunctions by Maimonides and 
others. 

If any evidence be needed to add to that which is 
offered by Prof. Lauterbach on this point, we may 
point first of all to the many general admonitions 
bespeaking love and good will to all men, such as 
the precept of the famous Rabbi Hillel (c. 30 B.c.), 
included in the popular collection of sayings ‘“‘The 
Ethics of the Fathers”: “Be of the disciples of 
Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving thy 
fellow creatures, and drawing them near to the 
law.” ® And among the precepts of later sages, the 
following charge—not open to any other interpre- 
tation—of Hayim Vital, a Jewish saint of the 16th 
century, embodies the high ground that Judaism at 
its best advised its votaries to take in relation to 
their non-Jewish neighbors: ‘Let man love all crea- 
tures, including Gentiles, and let him envy none.” 
Schechter, commenting on this passage, remarks 

*Mishnah Abot 1:12. 


136 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


that he knows of no Christian saint of the same 
period who made the love of the Jew a condition of 
saintliness.1° 

But it is not necessary to rely on precepts alone. 
We have abundant evidence that the charity aid 
which Jews were enjoined to extend to non-Jews was 
given in even fuller measure than commanded. The 
leading Jewish physicians, including Maimonides, 
the Ibn Tibbons and Saul Astruc Cohen, treated the 
Gentile poor without charge and with the same so- 
licitude as the Jewish poor. Writing of conditions 
in Italy in the 16th and 17th centuries, Vogelstein 
and Rieger 14 record that it was considered specially 
noble and pious to aid non-Jewish poor in the local- 
ity of one’s residence place. In view of their expe- 
riences at the hands of the general population, the 
high ground taken by Jews in this direction is truly 
remarkable. 


* Samuel S. Cohon: “Love, Human and Divine, in Post-Biblical 
Literature.” Year Book, Central Conference of Amer. Rabbis, 
XXVII (1917), p. 291. 

“ Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 Vols. Berlin, 1896, Vol. 2, 
Pp. 315. 


CHAPTER X 


THE RISE OF SOCIETIES AND 
INSTITUTIONS 


LoncG before the conditions were ripe for the 
establishment of specialized agencies to function for 
particular wants, the need for them was felt. The 
general relief funds did not always prove large 
enough nor sufficiently flexible to meet certain im- 
perative special needs, like those of orphans, of 
wayfarers, of indigent brides, of those suffering 
from sudden bereavement and the like; nor could 
the administration of the general funds always give 
the minute attention to these special groups of de- 
pendents which they deserved. 

The problem was met at first and for a long time 
by special collections for designated purposes. The 
codes go into elaborate details over the question of 
the segregation of such funds and the extent to which 
they may be used for purposes not originally des- 
ignated. A further step in the solution of this prob- 
lem was taken with the apportionment of the general 
charity fund towards specific uses and the delegation 
of the specialized work to a particular administrator 
or set of administrators. The interests of widows 
and orphans were thus in many places entrusted into 

137 


138 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


the hands of the court (Bet-Din) and special priv- 
ileges in buying and selling were often accorded 
them. Other classes of dependents received sepa- 
rate and distinct attention in like manner. For in- 
stance, in Lithuania in the early part of the 17th 
century, it was the duty of the three main courts 
to gather funds for dowries for poor girls and to 
supervise their distribution.? his arrangement rep- 
resents an intermediate step in the process of differ- 
entiation. The service is distinct and specialized, 
but the contributors are not. The next step in the 
evolution of social service in the direction of min- 
istrations to special classes is the founding of special 
societies and institutions to handle the particular 
needs of these classes. The societies and institutions 
have their own officers, and their membership is not 
identical with the membership of the community. 

At this juncture it is again necessary to make 
clear that the evolution in the problems and ma- 
chinery of Jewish charity did not follow a uniform 
order in the various localities nor did it take place 
simultaneously in the different communities. Some 
places given to unprogressive ideas contented them- 
selves with the one miscellaneous public fund for 

*Cf. Aaron Halevi of Barcelona: Sefer Ha-Chinnuk, Sec. 65. 
Based on Maimonides: Mishneh Torah, Hilkot Deot 6:10. 

* Brisk (Brest-Litovsk) was entitled to 12 dowries, Grodno, to 
10, and Pinsk, to 8. Cf. Regulations (M\JPN) of the Council of 
the Four Lands for 1623 by Samuel Pinchas Rabinowitz in periodi- 


cal Keneset Israel (DN1¥W" NDID), Vol. II (1887), p. 33; also 
reproduced in Hebrew appendix to periodical Evreiskaya, Starina, 


Vol. I (1899), p. 55. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 139 


all purposes, ultimately making the transition to spe- 
cialized organizations rather precipitately, under 
the pressure of some new necessity, without passing 
through the intermediate stages described above. 
In certain centers, societies or institutions, to serve 
particular ends, originated at a date much earlier 
than that which witnessed the general rise and spread 
of such organizations, there being exceptional causes 
—advanced ease and culture and a large settled pop- 
ulation—that superinduced their comparatively early 
formation in these places. The processes of evolu- 
tion we are tracing in the history of Jewish philan- 
thropic thought and endeavor hold true to the same 
extent as the rules of development in the general 
fields of industry and religion and political life— 
to that extent and no more. A combination of 
needs and resources of a certain kind gave birth, as 
a rule, to new instruments to function for the task 
in hand, but this consummation was not necessarily 
contemporaneous nor precisely uniform everywhere. 
The conditions of Jewish political and social life 
differed so materially with time and locality that no 
definite law of development following a chronolog- 
ical order can be postulated. Nevertheless, the dif- 
ferentiation did follow roughly the same broad lines 
and it is entirely proper to make generalizations on 
the basis of resemblances. 

We now come to a consideration of the causes 
that were responsible for the rise of separate organi- 
zations to care for special wants, i.e., for cases other 


140 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


than plain relief. The data at our disposal are not 
complete. We have to piece together the scattered 
fragments of evidence and to supply the deficiencies 
from our general knowledge of the situation. 

The shattering of the unified body of Jewry into 
a multitude of broken fragments, begun as a volun- 
tary matter by way of emigration soon after Alex- 
ander the Great’s days and precipitated on a vast 
scale under the pressure of ruthless compulsion after 
the overthrow of the Jewish state by Rome, and 
further intensified by the successive measures of 
unrelenting persecutions and restrictions extending 
over the entire long period of their political disa- 
bility, 7.e., up to the era of emancipation, profoundly 
affected the emergence, development and continuity 
of new instruments of social service. Eking out a 
precarious existence in most places, driven to a 
panicky state of mind by incessant assaults, cast out 
of their moorings by edicts and mobs before they 
had a fair chance to anchor themselves, as often as 
they thought they discovered a haven of refuge, the 
Jews found it wasted energy and foolish purpose to 
set up institutions, the original outlay for which 
called for a heavy investment and the maintenance 
of which required steady and uninterrupted support. 
The same circumstances that kept the Jewish com- 
munities forever disturbed and impoverished also 
kept them small in point of population. These set- 
tlements, with but few exceptions, were accordingly 
not confronted with the problems arising out of the 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 141 


concentration of large numbers of dependents re- 
quiring particular treatment and did not labor under 
the necessity of setting up special institutions.? 

It is this interference with their normal life and 
growth that accounts for the comparatively tardy 
founding of specialized charity institutions among 
the Jews during the period we are surveying. In- 
deed, it is a tribute to their inexhaustible benevolence 
of spirit and their insuppressible optimism that they 
established any institutions at all before the 17th 
century, when the age-long cloud of oppression first 
began to lift in western and central Europe. Where 
they did organize such agencies before the 17th cen- 
tury, they almost always took advantage of a breath- 
ing-spell between persecutions, hoping that they 
would be let alone thereafter, a hope not always 
realized. 

Benjamin of Tudela, a Jewish merchant-traveler 
of the 12th century, who wrote a narrative of his 
travels in Asia, Europe and Egypt, where he vis- 
ited the chief centers of Jewish population, does not 
mention seeing any Jewish charitable institutions at 
all, although he does note the existence of Christian 
hospices at Jerusalem and Moslem hospitals and 
an insane asylum at Bagdad. Hiuis journal is some- 
what fragmentary in its observations and the copy 
extant may even be an abridgment of the original 


* Charitable institutions seldom arise before population is con- 
centrated. The first hospital in the United States—the Pennsyl- 
vania Hospital—was founded in Philadelphia in 1750. New Inter- 
national Encyclopedia, s.v. “Hospital.” 


142 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


work.‘ Yet this testimony of silence is significant. 
We may assume with a fair amount of certainty 
that, with the exception of shelters and almshouses 
and perhaps also of hospitals, there were no spe- 
cialized charitable institutions among Jews in the 
12th century. ‘The records thus far available of 
communal activities and properties in the 13th and 
14th centuries, such as the description of the Jewish 
quarters of Madrid and Valence in Spain of the year 
1391 (including a chart of the city of Valence), 
make no allusions as a rule to any institutions other 
than synagogue, school and cemetery.® 

Some of the records do make reference to the 
three types of institution already noted as excep- 
tions, the first mention we have found being of an 
almshouse in Regensburg, Germany, in 1210, and 
many others occurring in the 14th century and later. 
Other types of institutions, like orphan asylums, 
free schools for the indigent, and so forth, do not 
appear to have arisen until the latter part of the 
17th century. 


“Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. Translated into English 
and edited by A. Asher, 2 vols., London and Berlin 1840. The 
narrative covers a period of about 14 years, from 1159 or 1160 to 
1173. 

* Isidore Loeb: “Le Sac des Juiveries de Valence et de Madrid en 
1391,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13 (July, 1886), p. 239; and 
his “Notes sur l’Histoire des Juifs en Espagne,” in the same 
periodical, Vol. 14, p. 257. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 143 


A. EARLIER INSTITUTIONS 


SHELTERS 


Of the few institutions that originated in very 
early times, either antedating the medieval period 
or arising during the first half of that epoch, the 
Shelter or Inn for wayfarers has the oldest pedigree 
and the most continuous record. We have seen that 
the synagogue of Theodotos, reconstructed from an 
older foundation at about 10 B.c., had such a Shelter 
connected with it. Shelters of this kind appear to 
have been provided in all the early synagogues either 
within the edifice or in a separate building on the 
grounds. The Talmud mentions a synagogue where 
poor strangers ate and slept.® In the course of time 
the Shelter developed as a separate institution. It is 
referred to frequently in the Talmud where it is 
called Pundok or Pandok (pins, Greek savéoxeior ) 
or Achsanya (wsp2x, Greek gos, guest). The 
Greek name suggests a possible Greek origin. 
The Hellenes are indeed known to have given 
much thought to the matter of hospitality and 
to have developed Shelters or _ resting-places 
for that purpose several centuries before the 
Christian era. But “nomen atque omen” may be a 
misleading guide in this instance, as it is in the case 


*Pesachim rora. “Indeed, up till the ninth or tenth centuries, 
Asiatic synagogues were homes for travellers, who lodged in the 
synagogues and took their meals there.” I. Abrahams, of. cit., 


P. 34. 


144. JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


of the Jewish supreme legislative and judicial body, 
the Sanhedrin, likewise Greek in its etymology, 
which, as far as we know, was not at all constituted 
after any Hellenic model. Nor does the fact that 
the Greeks possessed such inns in the very early cen- 
turies preclude the possibility of the Jews’ having 
developed corresponding institutions at approxi- 
mately the same time and independent of foreign 
influence. Certain it is that Jewish tradition, re- 
corded in the Talmud and the Midrash, places the 
founding of these institutions far back in remote 
times, as far back as Abraham. ‘Lhe terebinth tree 
or grove (>wx) which Abraham planted in Beer- 
sheba (Gen. 21:33) is interpreted by Rabbi Simeon 
b. Lakish and his contemporary R. Jehudah (II) ben 
Gamaliel (c. 250 A.D.) as meaning a garden for 
wayfarers, and by R. Nehemiah (c. 150 A.D.) as 
meaning an inn(ptyp) for them.” St. Jerome was ac- 
quainted with this rabbinical tradition, as is evident 
from his praising the Roman lady Fabiola, when she 
founded a house for the sick in Rome and a shelter 
for strangers in Ostia, for “planting the shoot of the 
terebinth of Abraham on the Ausonian coast.” § 
The claims of tradition with respect to things and 
persons chronologically remote must, however, as a 
rule be discounted when unsupported by historical 
evidence and in the present instance reveal an ideal- 


"Sota 10a; Yalkut Shimeoni to Ps. 37, cited in Meil Zedakah 
§ 326. For further Tal. references, cf. Levy, Tal. Dict., s.v. DUND. 

*“K. Kohler: “Zum Kapitel der jiidischen Wohlthatigkeitspflege,” 
in Festschrift zum 70 Geburtstage A. Berliner’s, p. 201. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 145 


ization of Abraham’s virtue of hospitality rather 
than a historical fact. Besides, the Inn so accredited 
to him, if it existed at all, was a privately supported 
establishment, not a community institution. We are 
justified in saying that in the time of the Talmudic 
scholars who trace the Pandok or Achsanya back to 
Abraham, there were such institutions among Jews, 
i.¢., about 150 A.D. and that their origin goes back 
further. Very likely, the widespread oriental prac- 
tice of hospitality to an extent hardly realizable to 
occidentals, a practice in which the Jews shared in a 
preéminent way and which, as we shall presently see, 
carried on an uninterrupted tradition down to our 
own days in Russia and other lands where oriental 
ideas still linger, looked with disfavor upon the 
transference of strangers from the domestic hearth 
to the colder environment of an institution.° Never- 
theless, with the best intentions to provide for itin- 
erants in private homes exclusively, situations arose 
in the large centers of population which necessitated 
the establishment of community shelters such as are 
so often alluded to in the Talmud.*° 

° See article “Hospitality” in Jewish Encyclopedia. “Let thy house 
be open wide; let the poor be members of thy household” is the 
precept expounded by Jose ben Jochanan, one of the most revered 
sages, a contemporary of the Maccabees (150 B.c.), which received 
universal promulgation through its inclusion in the Pirke Abot 1:5. 

Probably the first departure from home hospitality was the 
putting to use of the premises of the synagogues for lodging pur- 
poses, a practice not uncommon in Eastern European lands today. 


Only a few people could have been accommodated in the syna- 
gogues and obviously only men. 


146 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


There is little heard of the communal inns after 
Talmudic days until after the Crusades when the 
need for them became urgent in consequence of the 
many Jews rendered homeless by the misdirected 
zeal of the knights, the priests and their followers. 
Public hostelries then arose in many cities, particu- 
larly in Germany, Italy and Spain. From this time 
under the newer Hebrew name of Hekdesh (wpm ) 
and the Latin designations “‘hospitale,” ‘“hospita- 
lium” and “hospes,” they served both as shelters 
for strangers and as almshouses and at times 
even as hospitals for the sick. In some places 
the community entertainment hall (Tanzhaus) 
was used for that purpose. In several places 
the community paid private families of moderate 
means a fee for quartering strangers in their 
homes. 

Side by side with the public provisions instituted, 
went a generous extension of shelter in private homes 
free of charge, with a great deal of tender sympathy 
added. In many communities the transients were 
distributed among the residents by a system of meal 
and lodging tickets (Billetten), particularly for the 
Sabbath, the head of each family, even the poorest, 
taking one wayfarer or more with him from the 
synagogue services on Friday evening, a custom that 
has survived in Russia and Poland up to the present 
time. In Paris the “Jews’ Inn” (Auberge Juive) 
supported by communal funds, continued until deep 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 147 


in the eighteenth century.11_ Haknasat Orchim (Re- 
ception of Wayfarers) Societies were found in vir- 
tually all Jewish communities until the movement for 
amalgamation of agencies in recent times set in, when 
they lost their identity in many places, being merged 
with the other charitable societies into one compre- 
hensive organization. 


ALMSHOUSES 


The Shelters were no doubt also used for the re- 
ception and maintenance of indigent people and 
superannuated persons who had no relatives to look 
after them, and so served also in the subsidiary ca- 
pacity of almshouses. ‘The two uses seem in time to 
have been differentiated, and separate institutions 
were established in the more populous communities. 
Nevertheless, the line was not sharply drawn and the 
two classes of inmates often occupied the same build- 
ing. It is dificult to determine from the records 
whether the Hekdesh,!” so often referred to in both 
the Hebrew and Latin documents of the Middle 
Ages, is in any given instance a shelter or an alms- 


“ Abrahams, of. cit., pp. 74-75, 311, 314. Joseph Jacobs, s.v. 
“Inn,” Jewish Encyclopedia, enumerates a few inns. A “domus 
sive hospitium judaicum” is referred to in the archives of the city 
of Coblenz, Germany, of the year 1356. K. Baas, who cites this 
reference in his article, “Jiidische Hospitaler in Mittelalter (Mozat- 
schrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1913, 
Pp. 452-460) understands this to mean a hospital, but the use of 
“hospitium” instead of “hospitale” seems to indicate a hostelry. 

“It is not clear how the name Hekdesh originated. The word 
in its earlier rabbinical use means property consecrated for holy 
purposes. Perhaps it is an abbreviation for D™IY wWIpn. 


148 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


house or both. As indicated above, it frequently 
appears to combine both functions. As the need for 
a home for the indigent was in general more constant 
than that for transients, the most common uses of the 
Hekdesh probably were those of almshouses and in- 
firmary. It will be seen that it also did duty as a 
hospital. There are earlier records of the Hekdesh 
than the one extant in Munich in 1381, characterized 
by Berliner 1° as the first to receive mention in docu- 
ments of the time. In an intensive study of the in- 
stitutions called Hekdesh, “‘hospitalis,” “‘hospitium,”’ 
etc., Dr. K. Baas quotes a deed of the year 1210 in 
which an agreement is made concerning a house de- 
scribed as ‘“‘domus hospitalis Judeorum.”’ 14 There 
was a Hekdesh used as a home for resident and 
transient poor and as an infirmary (or hospital) in 
Cologne which Brisch, without, however, offering 
suficient evidence, declares to have been established 
in the 11th century. ‘This institution was founded 
by a rich family. The passage recording its estab- 
lishment reads: “Master Eliakim and his mother 
Mistress Bela, Master Mordecai and his wife, 
Mistress Hannah, who built the Hekdesh at 
Cologne.” 15 ‘This is no doubt the same Hekdesh 


* Aus der Leben der deutschen Juden in Mittelalter (Berlin, 
1900), p. 120. 

* “Jidische Spitaler in Mittelalter.”” Monatschrift fiir Geschichte 
und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1911, p. 746. 

% paw man MD Ine aT WD NSA My IN) Dds I 

sondipsa eapan 

Carl Brisch: Geschichte der Juden in Céln und Umgebung, Mil- 
heim am Rhein, 7879, p. 20. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 149 


referred to as the “‘hospitale Judeorum”’ in a record 
of sale dated 1247.1° 

A decision by the distinguished Rabbi Solomon 
ben Adret (b. 1235, Barcelona; d. 1310) involving 
the disposition of a legacy proves that there was a 
public Hekdesh in Tortosa, Spain, at that time.1” 
At the end of the 13th century or the beginning of 
the 14th there was an almshouse or hospital at Nar- 
bonne which, with its three outhouses, was valued at 
too livres.1® An interesting entry is found in the 
martyrological chronicles of the community of Nurn- 
berg, dated 1278-1299, containing a reference to a 
Hekdesh in that city. The following is a translation: 
‘And these are to be commemorated here at Nirn- 
berg. May God remember the soul of R. Samuel, 
the son of the martyr, R. Nathan Halevi, with the 
souls of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because he left 
200 litres for the cemetery, 50 for the Hekdesh, to- 
gether with a prayer shawl and death robe, and 50 
litres for the education of children.” 1° 

Almshouses were found practically everywhere 
from this period on. Prof. Baas, in the study quoted 
(see note II) enumerates many in German cities in 
the 14th century, including institutions in Coblenz 


* Robert Hoeniger: Das Judenschreinbuch der Laurenzpfarre zu 
Koln, Berlin, 1888. Document No. 36. 

*Responsa, 656 xe» Sy wipnd. 

* Jean Régné: “Etude sur la Condition des Juifs de Narbonne,” 
Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 46 (1903), p. 84. 

* Ad. Neubauer: “Le Memorbuch de Mayence,” Révue des Etudes 
Juives, Vol. 3 (1882), pp. 7-8. 


150 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 
(1356), Vienna (1381), Munich (1381). ‘There 


were others in evistence at Lauingen (1347), 
Worms (15th century) ,?° in the larger communities 
of Castille (1432),?1 in Marseilles (1492), where 
there were two,2” in Avignon (1558),?° and else- 
where. ‘The almshouse continued as the most com- 
mon local institution until modern times. 


HOSPITALS AND FREE MEDICAL CARE 


Hospitals in the sense of institutions for the care 
and treatment of the sick, i.e., as distinguished from 
infirmaries and almshouses, make their appearance 
among the Jews later than among the Christians, 
who have them as early as the 4th century, and 
among the Mohammedans who possess them in great 
numbers in the time of Haroun-Al-Raschid in the late 
8th century, both of the latter having been preceded 
-in the establishment of them by the Greeks, and 
Romans and Buddhists, and still farther back by the 
Egyptians.** It may be that the deeply rooted do- 
mestic attachments and the universally practised and 


*Dr. L. Lowenstein: “Zur Gesch. der Juden in Friedberg,” in 
Blaetter fiir jiid. Gesch. und Litteratur, Vol. III (Feb., 1902), pp. 
69, 120. 

“Isidor Loeb: “Réglement de Juifs de Castille en 1432,” Réwue 
des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13, pp. 37, 40. 

*” Ad. Cremieux: “Les Juifs de Marseille au Moyen Age,” Réwue 
des Etudes Juives, Vol. 46, p. 32. 

*'R. de Maulde: “Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Pape au 
Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 7, p. 237. 

“Cf. Sir Henry Burdett in Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Charity 
and Charities.” 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 151 


sacredly conceived duty of hospitality, characteristic 
not of Jews alone, but of the Orient as a whole, mili- 
tated against the placing of relatives or strangers in 
any place other than a home in ‘Talmudic days, al- 
though one would have expected the same inhibition 
to have operated in the case of the Arabs. A more 
potent reason probably was the smallness and the 
precarious nature of Jewish settlements, already 
dwelt on above. ‘The history of the world shows,” 
says Sir Henry Burdett,” “that whereas a few of the 
larger towns in most countries contained hospitals of 
sorts up to and including the Middle Ages, it was 
not until the commencement of the 18th century that 
inhabitants of important but relatively small towns 
of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants began to 
provide themselves with a hospital for the care of 
the sick.”” After the disruption of the large Jewish 
community of Alexandria, Egypt, in the second cen- 
tury, A.D., there were no Jewish communities num- 
bering as many as 50,000 souls anywhere in the 
world,”® until the modern period, and there could 
have been very few regions covering a circumference 
of say a hundred miles with a population of that 
size. So, although hospitals were known to the 
Jews—a Jewish king, Uzziah, suffering from lep- 


* Thid. 

**Hamadan and Samarkand are said to have had a population 
of 50,000 each in the latter part of the 12th cent. (Graetz: History 
of the Jews, Eng. Ed., Vol. III, Ch. XIII, p. 434f.) but these esti- 
mates appear exaggerations. The Babylonian centers and their 
vicinities in the 12th cent. and Toledo, Spain, in the 13th, alone 
seem to have approximated 50,000. 


152 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


rosy, had segregated himself in what amounted to a 
private hospital in the 9th century, B.c.?7—they did 
without them for a long period when these were 
already extant elsewhere, contenting themselves with 
substitutions, such as making use of the communal 
hostelries or almshouses in cases of emergency, or 
paying physicians out of communal funds for the free 
treatment of the sick poor in their own homes.?® 
Studies of these latter means of providing medical 
care for the sick outside of hospitals are not yet far 
enough advanced to supply us with data for the 
earlier part of the period covered by our inquiry, but 
we are in possession of indisputable evidence showing 
that some communities engaged physicians at stated 
remuneration to render medical treatment to the 
poor free, in the later centuries of our period. The 
Frankfurt community is an instance in point. It had 
a Jewish physician in 1394 charged with the duty 
of treating the poor free.?® Ferrara is another in- 
stance. [hat community established a stipend in 
1629 and gave it to Guiseppe Kamis, the physician- 
rabbi, on the condition that he should render medical 
service to the poor without charge.®® Another in- 
stance is that of the Cracow community, which, from 


1624 to 1655 paid David Calahorra, the Jewish 


"TI K. 15:5 and II Chr. 26:21. 

* Cf. Abrahams, of. cit., p. 329. 

*® Baas, Monatschrift, 1913, p. 456. 

“Isaac Ascoli: Cenni Storici sull’ origine e sugli avvenimenti 
Risguardanti La Universita Israelitica Ferrarese (Ferrara, 1857), 
Bi,” 49, 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 153 


pharmacist of the Ghetto, an annual sum varying be- 
tween 90 and 150 florins for furnishing medicine 
free to the poor, upon the order of the charity ad- 
ministrator, and after his death engaged in a similar 
agreement with his son Matatia.*t. In 1673 the 
Posen community engaged Dr. Jacob Winkler as 
community physician, exempting him from a por- 
tion of his taxes in return for his services. His 
duties included free medical services to the poor 
and the supplying of inexpensive medicines to the 
destitute.®? 

When research makes further headway, it will be 
found that such provision was likewise made in the 
earlier part of our period, that is, whenever the phy- 
sicians themselves did not or could not volunteer free 
services. It was no unusual thing for Jewish physi- 
cians, who abounded throughout the Middle Ages 
and who were in such demand among the highest 
personages that even the prohibitions of Church au- 
thorities did not in most cases stop Christians from 
seeking treatment from them, to give their services 
gratis to their poor co-religionists (and for that mat- 
ter to non-Jews likewise) when they could afford it. 
The cases of Moses Maimonides in the 12th century 
in Cairo, Egypt, of his contemporary Judah Ibn Tib- 
bon of Liinel, France, and of Saul Astruc Cohen of 
Algiers in the 14th century—all three eminent physi- 


*M. Balaban: “Jewish Physicians in Cracow and the Tragedies 
of the Ghetto—1s5th to 17th centuries” (In Russian), Evereiskayd 
Starina, Vol. 4 (1912), pp. 38-53. 

* A. Heppner and J. Herzberg, o/. cit., p. 162. 


154 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


cians and scholars—cited by Israel Abrahams ** are 
good examples. Maimonides conducted a free clinic 
for the poor in his own home in connection with his 
regular practice and well-nigh collapsed from sheer 
exhaustion late at night after his hard day’s work, 
as he tells Ibn Tibbon in a letter describing how over- 
worked he is.*4 

We see a curious merging of paid and free 
will services in the case of Samuel Ha-Kohen, 
physician of the ghetto in Cracow in the first 
part of the 17th century. He gave his ser- 
vices free; the community in appreciation put 
so florins at his disposal annually, from 1630 
on, to distribute among the poor. He died in 
1646: 

In the section on Almshouses we pointed out that 
the Hekdesh also served as a hospital. The Hebrew 
word, which may cover either meaning, and the Latin 
equivalents which may likewise signify either, leave 
it in doubt as to which is meant in most instances. 
Baas, after carefully examining all the evidence, 
comes to the conclusion that the ‘‘Hospital’’ men- 
tioned in the Latin references signifies essentially 
a ‘“‘hospice,” 7.e., a shelter or inn as distinguished 
from “Infirmarium” (infirmary) ; that this and the 
Hekdesh are identical; that they were primarily de- 
signed for out-of-town guests having no local rela- 

*° Op. cit., p. 330 f. 


“ Ibid., pp. 235-6. 
*M. Balaban, Joc. cit. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 155 


tives; that there were sometimes sick among these 
strangers who were given medical treatment; and 
that in certain places, centers of trade, as in Frank- 
furt and Nurnberg, the large number of sick 
strangers present led to a separation of the original 
institution into two distinct structures, the name 
Hekdesh being retained for the Shelter and the de- 
signation Hospital being adopted for the sick house. 
This development, Baas says, took place at the 
end of the Middle Ages, Frankfurt having been the 
first to establish a separate hospital. ‘There, in 1394, 
the community physician, Solomon Pletsch, had to 
attend sick Jews in the hospital. This must have 
been a Jewish hospital, as the reception of Jews in 
Christian hospitals then is inconceivable. There is, 
in any case, a clear reference to a hospital as distinct 
from a Shelter in Frankfurt in 1473.36 There was 
one at Marseilles mentioned in a protocol of a notary 
in 1426, but which was no doubt older in origin.*7 
A hospital was projected at Ferrara during an epi- 
demic in 1630.° In the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries hospitals sprang up in all the populous 
centers. 


OTHER INSTITUTIONS 


Other institutions for specialized services do not 
appear to have arisen before the 17th century. The 
oldest orphan asylum is one for boys in Amsterdam, 


*° Baas, loc. cit. 
7 Ad. Cremieux., loc. cit. 
* Isaac Ascoli, op. cit., p. 22. 


156 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


founded in 1648.°® A school for orphan boys 
(‘Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Orphan School’’) 
was established in London in 1703, and one for poor 
girls, The Villareal Charity School, in 1730.*° 


B. EARLIER SOCIETIES 


BURIAL SOCIETIES 


The formation of voluntary societies preceded the 
establishment of institutions in nearly every phase of 
specialized service. ‘The societies could cope with 
the situation without the outlay of large sums for 
property and maintenance. ‘These societies with one 
exception, or at most two, did not originate before 
the end of the 16th century. “The one exception was 
the Burial Society. The Hebrew name is usually 
Chebrah Kaddishah (Holy League). Its origin 
goes far back, very likely to Talmudic times.*! The 
distinguished scholar Asher ben Yechiel (b. Ger- 
many 1250, d. Toledo, 1328), in a responsum, dis- 
cusses the question of a son succeeding his deceased 
father as a member of such a society. In this con- 
nection he defines the objects of these societies thus: 
To be with the mourner the night of the death; to 
accompany the funeral cortége; to participate in the 
burial; to furnish consolation meals to the mourners; 


*® Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Amsterdam.” 

“E. H. Lindo: A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four years, London, 
1838, p. 1or. 

“I, Abrahams, op. cit., p. 333. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTTIUTIONS 157 


and to pray with them.*2 The Vienna Chebrah 
Kaddishah can be traced back to 1320, the Wilna 
society to 1486 and the Prague association to 1564.48 
These societies added sick benefits later. 

We have come across an instance of one other 
type of society that antedated by more than two cen- 
turies the voluntary associations of the 16th and 
subsequent centuries. It is that of a trade guild 
mutual benefit association, the fraternity (confra- 
dia) of Jewish shoemakers, in Saragossa, Spain. 
This society was called into being by a statute, con- 
firmed May 6, 1336, by King Pedro III. As Jews 
were excluded from the trade guilds of the general 
population, it is an interesting question whether they 
had guilds of their own in many places or whether 
such guilds were the exception. ‘There could not 
have been enough workmen of the same craft in 
many places to warrant the organization of a guild. 
The rules governing the Saragossa fraternity re- 
quired of each member: (1) To attend wedding and 
circumcision celebrations in families of members, 
failure to do so entailing a fine of one dinero; (2) 
To visit sick fellow-members every Sabbath, on pain 
of a fine of one dinero. Officers of the fraternity 
must visit sick members twice a week, on Mondays 
and Thursdays and, if aid is needed, give the patient 
two dineros a day from the treasury of the frater- 


”Responsa, Caption 13, Sec. 12, 13. 

“Heinrich Haase: “Die Wohlfartspflege bei den Juden,” in M. 
Grunwald, Die Hygiene der Juden, Dresden, 1911, Appendix, 
p. xii, 


158 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


nity; (3) In case of death, members must escort the 
body to the grave and join in prayers at the home of 
the deceased during the days of mourning. Fine, 
two and one dineros.** 

There were guilds of butchers, tailors, shoemakers 
and musicians in Prague at this time or soon after. 
Special sections of the cemetery were reserved for 
the several guilds.*® 


C. LATER SOCIETIES 


By the 16th century societies were springing up in 
most of the larger communities, and in the 17th cen- 
tury there was a veritable crop of them everywhere, 
the populous communities having each many associa- 
tions to care for every kind of need then felt. The 
17th century may indeed be called the age of the 
Jewish voluntary charitable organization. Rome 
was especially rich in these societies. They are de- 
scribed in detail in the exhaustive studies of that 
community made by Vogelstein and Rieger,*® by 
A. Berliner *7 and Israel Abrahams.*® ‘‘The more 
than twenty societies there offer an exalted picture 
of the communal conscience and of practical philan- 
thropy,’’ comment the first mentioned pair of au- 


“M. Kayserling, in Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums, Vol. 
56, p. 438. Cf. also Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Saragossa.” 

© Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Prague.” 

* Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Vol. 2, pp. 314-317. 

“" Geschichte der Juden in Rom, Vol. 2, pp. 33-63. 

“Op. cit., pp. 326-329. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 159 


thors.*2 The societies of Rome included associations 


for the relief of the poor, for the care of the aged, 
for the provision of clothing, shoes and bedding, 
for the aid of widows and other poor women, for 
the provision of trousseaus and dowries for poor 
brides, for visiting the sick and comforting mourners, 
for the education and maintenance of orphans, for 
the extension of free loans, and for the collecting 
of alms for the Holy Land. 

In Leghorn a society for providing dowries for 
poor brides for the relief of impoverished members 
was founded by prominent Spanish Jewish families 
in 1644; another for clothing the poor, in 1654; and 
a third, ‘“‘Beneficenza Israelitica,” for the relief of 
communal poor and the ransoming of prisoners, in 
1683. [he community of London, then barely 
twenty years old, established two voluntary societies, 
representing offshoots of the new Portuguese con- 
gregation—a society for the education and clothing 
of boys in 1664, and another for rendering relief to 
the sick, in 1665. At least twelve other organ- 
izations designed to answer various charitable 
needs were created in London during the following 
century.°° 

Amsterdam, Venice, Mantua, Rotterdam, Frank- 
fort a. Main, and other centers established societies 
during the 17th or 18th centuries to take care of 

ne the hae 


® Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Leghorn;” E. H. Lindo: A Jewish 
Calendar for Sixty-four Years, London, 1838, p. 1o1. 


160 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


particular classes. The Jews of Spanish and Portu- 
guese extraction, being the wealthiest, led in these 
movements. Those of Germanic origin followed 
quickly in their wake. Societies for the dowering of 
poor brides appear to have made the chief appeal to 
the founders. The constitutions and regulations of 
all these organizations disclose a fairly comprehen- 
sive understanding of the problems grappled with, 
and the employment of systematic measures of 
treatment.*? 


DOWRIES 


It will be observed that several of these societies 
specialized in services that might be called character- 
istically Jewish. ‘Those devoted to the provision of 
dowries and trousseaus belong to that class. ‘The 


* Cf. the published statutes of these societies, as follows: Ascha- 
moth da Companhia de Dotar Donzellos Pobres (Amsterdam Com- 
munity), Amsterdam, 1726 (This is a revision of the statutes of 
1658; this society was organized in 1615) ; Statutes of the Chebrah 
Kaddishah Society of the German Congregation of Amsterdam, 
1776; Rules of the Great Holy Society for Dowering Brides 
(Amsterdam German Community), Amsterdam, 1794; Regulations 
of the Society of the Congregation of Levantines in Venice to 
Provide Dowries for Maidens (in Hebrew, 1653; in Italian, 1689) ; 
Regulations of the Society of Mazzal Bethula (Dowries for 
Maidens) of Mantua (in Hebrew and Italian), 1678; Mantua 
Society to provide children of poor with means for circumcision (in 
Hebrew), 1743 (founded 1716) ; Statutes of the Holy Society for the 
Study of the Law, of Rotterdam, 1787. (This society provided 
education and supplied clothing free to children of members. 
Reference is made to two older societies); Statutes of the Society 
Rodefe Zedakah (Pursuers of Charity), of Frankfort a. Main, 1786 
(in Hebrew. Mutual benefit and charitable). The statutes of the 
Amsterdam and Rotterdam communities here listed are in Hebrew 
and Yiddish-Deutsch. 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 161 


high esteem placed by Jewish teachings on marriage 
and domestic life led to the extension of financial aid 
to poor people desiring to get married, from Tal- 
mudic days on. 


REDEMPTION OF CAPTIVES 


Societies for the redemption of captives likewise 
have a special Jewish character. As already ex- 
plained, the capture of Jews by pirates, or their 
forcible imprisonment by the official authorities for 
the purpose of extorting a ransom for their release, 
was a matter of constant occurrence. [heir redemp- 
tion became a tragic standing necessity. Jewish law 
and Jewish fraternal feeling gave the ransoming of 
captives the first claim on any charity fund. Jacob 
Mann cites several letters written in the 11th and 
12th centuries by the Jewish congregations in Alex- 
andria to sister congregations in Northern Egypt 
and one to a congregation in Byzantium request- 
ing financial assistance in completing funds for the 
redemption of captives taken by Moslem pirates 
from Greek ships. The demands made on Egyptian 
Jews of those days to redeem brother Jews so cap- 
tured were frequent and onerous. They answered 
these calls generously and feelingly, often strug- 
gling under the heavy burden, and seeking outside 
assistance only when their own means failed. ‘There 
was a fixed ransom price per captive. It was 33-1/3 
dinars, about £16 in gold, equivalent in the currency 
of our day to nearly £50. It was no uncommon ex- 


162 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


perience for the Alexandrian and neighboring com- 
munities to be saddled with the burden of redeeming 
groups of prisoners in close succession. Women and 
children were now and then among the captives. 
They were sometimes cruelly treated by the pirates. 
The prominent men of the Jewish congregations 
rendered distinguished service in this work of mercy 
by means of generous contributions and personal aid. 
Maimonides was one of the many who thus served 
their co-religionists. As a rule, the Moslem pirates 
adhered to the fixed ransom rates. Only rarely did 
they accept smaller amounts. Occasionally they de- 
manded larger sums.°? 

Pirates and abductors likewise troubled European 
regions. hey took frequent advantages of the ten- 
der solicitude of the Jews for their brethren and 
exacted enormous sums for the release of the pris- 
oners. In order to check this practice, the eminent 
Rabbi, Meir of Rothenberg, whom Count Meinhard 
had incarcerated for the purpose of mulcting the 
Jewish communities of Germany, refused to have 
himself redeemed and remained in prison. He died 
there after eight years of confinement, in 1293.°8 
The abuse did not abate, however, and the need of 
funds for ransoming prisoners continued throughout 
the Middle Ages. To mention but one other in- 
stance, this one on a larger scale: In 1492 one hun- 


* The Jews in Egpyt and in Palestine under the Fatimid 
Caliphs, 2 vols., Oxford University Press, 1920-1922, Vol. 1, pp. 
87-95, 204-205, 232, 244. 

°° Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Meir of Rothenberg.” 


SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS 163 


dred and eighteen Jews, driven out of Aragon by 
the edict of Ferdinand and Isabella, were brought 
by a bandit captain of a galley to Marseilles and 
kept prisoner in the harbor. The Jews of Mar- 
seilles, then in straitened circumstances, borrowed 
1500 écus from Charles Forbin, a Christian of Mar- 
seilles, which the refugees undertook to repay within 
four months. The Jews of Marseilles and Aix 
stood surety for them with their property and their 
lives and fed and sheltered them in addition, during 
the four months.*4 


COLLECTIONS FOR THE HOLY LAND 


Associations for the collection of funds for the 
poor in the Holy Land developed as a natural se- 
quence of the uninterrupted support from privates 
and communities beginning before the fall of the 
Jewish state. This Palestinian fund, called later on 
the Chalukkah (Division), appealed to the sentiment 
of all the pious in the Diaspora and reached con- 
siderable proportions. While many old people and 
scholars who came to spend their last years at Jeru- 
salem were legitimate subjects for pensions, there 
were others who took advantage of the prevailing 
sentiment and allowed themselves to become pauper- 
ized. However, the comparative smallness of the 
Jewish population in the Holy Land in medieval 


*Tsidor Loeb: “Un Convoi d’Exilés d’Espagne a Marseille en 
1492,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 9, p. 66 f. 


164 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


times prevented this subsidy from becoming a burden 
on the supporters.°*® 

The growth in the number and influence of the 
voluntary benevolent organizations in the 16th, 17th 
and 18th centuries gradually removed the charities 
from the control of the official communal authorities 
and so stimulated the decline of rabbinical guidance, 
leading ultimately to complete detachment from 
ecclesiastical direction, the condition which charac- 
terizes modern Jewish philanthropy. 


© Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. “Halukkah.” 


CHAPTER XI 


CHANGING CONDITIONS AND THEIR 
EFFECTS 


WE shall now attempt to trace the tendencies 
which made themselves manifest in the 17th and 
18th centuries and which resulted in the reorganiza- 
tion of communal philanthropic activities along mod- 
ern principles and methods. 

Side by side with the rise and spread of voluntary 
societies engaged in ministering to particular classes, 
described in the preceding chapter, the congregations 
continued functioning as dispensers of aid, notably in 
the field of general relief. In cities where there was 
but one Jewish congregation, this arrangement prob- 
ably worked out more or less satisfactorily. But in 
places where there were several congregations and 
particularly in centers where there were mixed Jew- 
ish populations representing different nationalities 
and dissimilar stocks (Spanish-Portuguese, German, 
etc.), considerable chaos necessarily resulted. ‘The 
need was therefore felt urgently to combine the char- 
itable endeavors of the separate congregations. This 
need, in fact, led to an amalgamation of the congre- 
gations, either of those composed of the same social 


elements or of two or more congregations of diverse 
165 


166 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


stock. Thus, in Hamburg, in 1652, the three Portu- 
guese congregations consolidated. One of the chief 
objects stated in the minutes of that amalgamation 
was to achieve better management of relief.t In 
Ferrara, nearly a century earlier, the Italian and 
(serman congregations had united for similar rea- 
sons.” In the majority of the communities, however, 
separatism continued, at least as between the congre- 
gations of diverse stocks. So it was in London where 
the Spanish congregation, organized in 1701, admin- 
istered relief>to its own impoverished members and 
other Spanish co-religionists, and in [The Hague, 
where the German community took care of the wants 
of its adherents and their kindred. The constitution 
and minutes of the former ° and the statutes of the 
latter * indicate that careful attention was given to 
individual cases. This London congregation con- 
tinued to dispense general relief alongside of the 
several voluntary organizations that sprang up 
among its membership for the care of special wants. 

*“Aus dem 4ltesten Protokollbuch der portugiesisch-jiidischen 
Gemeinde in Hamburg.” Translated from the Spanish by J. C. 
Jahrbuch der jiid. lit. Gesellschaft, Vol. VI, p. 7. 

* Regolamento (Constitution) of that community, 1573. See Isaac 
Ascoli, op. cit., p. 14. 

*Ascamot para o Governo da Congrega da Saar-Ashamaim de 
Londres 5545 (1765), sections 36-37; Moses Gaster: History of 
the Ancient Synagogue of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews (1701- 
1901), section “Offerings and Collections in the Synagogue,” pp. 
54-60. In the first year £252 were spent on foreign poor and 
£230 for local poor; in the second year £311 and £185, re- 


spectively, and in the third year, £225 and £312. 
*Statutes and By-Laws, published in Amsterdam, 1800. 


CHANGING CONDITIONS 167 


These latter included an orphans’ home, free loan 
activities, a hospital and a burial society.® 

It is evident that the use of the congregation as 
the chief instrument of the benevolence of any given 
city had its limitations and weaknesses whenever and 
wherever the community became populous and com- 
plex. The benevolent activities could at best consti- 
tute one aspect of its program while they demanded 
sustained and undivided attention from officers who 
could bring abundant time and strength to the task. 
Even where voluntary societies doing specialized 
work had arisen alongside of the congregation, the 
miscellaneous relief itself was too exacting to be 
handled well by the busy officers of the congregation, 
nor could these latter as a rule be qualified to deal 
adequately with the work. Furthermore, the congre- 
gations and the voluntary societies of the time were 
constituted largely on the mutual benefit plan and 
the charitable aid extended by them was designed 
primarily to reach impoverished fellow-members, a 
fact which must have operated admirably in favor of 
prevention of poverty, but which must have drawn 
attention somewhat away from those poor who could 
not afford membership. Where the community con- 
sisted of elements of diverse stock and grouped off in 
separate congregations corresponding to these na- 
tional and social differences, there were, in addition, 
the problems of duplication and divided responsi- 


°E. H. Lindo: A Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four Years, pp. 
IOI-102. 


168 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


bility or neglect. These circumstances called for 
changes in philanthropic organization and procedure. 

On the other hand, there were forces at work, 
both within Jewish communal life and from the out- 
side, which tended to bring the Jews into close rela- 
tions with the general population under the influences 
of the modern spirit and of modern methods of pro- 
cedure. he adoption of the languages of the coun- 
tries where they were residents, to which impetus was 
given by Moses Mendelssohn’s translation of the 
Bible for the use of Jews, into German, preceded 
their achieving citizenship. ‘The ghettos were being 
discontinued; at least, residence therein was not 
strictly enforced. ‘The industrial revolution originat- 
ing in England and spreading to other countries 
relaxed the dead hand of the past from thought and 
action, and affected the Jews together mi the rest 
of the population. 

But the most epochal event leading to the ultimate 
disintegration of the old Jewish social order, and 
carrying with it in time the complete rehabilitation 
of Jewish charitable organization and processes, was 
their political and economic emancipation. The year 
1791, when they were accorded complete equality in 
France, constitutes a new point of departure in Jew- 
ish life, marking the end of the long centuries of 
political disability, and ushering in the era of their 
free commingling with their Christian fellows. Asa 
matter of fact, their liberation was not simultaneous 
everywhere. Even legally they had been given equal- 


CHANGING CONDITIONS 169 


ity in at least one country before that (America, 
1776), whereas their emancipation was delayed in 
the other European lands until long after their 
liberation in France. Moreover, in the more toler- 
ant countries they enjoyed opportunities unoficially, 
which substantially approximated equality, while in 
certain unenlightened states, actual economic and 
social equality lagged far behind legal removal of 
restrictions. The example of France, however, 
carried tremendous weight, and may therefore serve 
as the determining point of departure. 

The newer conceptions which spread quickly 
among the Jews and the closer contacts which they 
sustained with the peoples in whose midst they 
dwelt, following rapidly in the wake of their political 
and economic emancipation, acted as a solvent upon 
the structure of custom and opinion that had been 
slowly built up during the many centuries of the 
rabbinical era, and which had remained intact as 
long as a program of isolation was forced upon them 
from the outside. The scope and character of their 
charity, along with their other norms, now gradually 
underwent modification. The growing permanence 
of the Jewish communities—an indirect consequence 
of the new equality of citizenship and opportunity— 
reduced the number of transient poor and focused 
attention on the problems of home dependents. 
Hand in hand with the feeling of permanence and 
security came the growth of the Jewish population 
in the large centers, in numbers and in prosperity. 


170 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


These circumstances made for the rapid spread of 
new societies to care both for the special needs of 
local dependents and for the wants of the transients. 

Even under the pre-emancipation status, the more 
progressive of the larger communities were not satis- 
fied with the nature and workings of their machinery 
of charity. Now, under the newer conditions, the 
inadequacy of the old methods became still more 
patent. More comprehensive measures for the 
handling of all the charitable wants in each commun- 
ity were needed. Codérdination and codperation be- 
tween various efforts—individual and organized— 
were an urgent necessity. New activities had to be 
started to grapple with newly risen problems. It 
was not enough to relieve poverty; it was imperative 
to initiate measures of prevention. It was a time of 
keen responsiveness to fresh ideas and fresh methods 
of approach. All that was needed in the Jewish cen- 
ters which had been most affected by the new polit- 
ical and social changes and which were now released 
from the age-old political and economic restraints 
imposed from without—all that was needed to set 
in motion movements of philanthropic reconstruction 
on a large scale, was an occasion, an event, that 
would arouse the consciousness of the people to the 
importance of the problem. 

The Jewish communities of London and Paris at 
the beginning of the 19th century offer excellent illus- 
trations alike of the unsatisfactory state of the Jew- 
ish charities of the time and of the transformation 


CHANGING CONDITIONS U7t 


which these underwent under the influences of the 
newer life. 

At the beginning of the 19th century, there was 
widespread poverty among the Jews in London, par- 
ticularly among the predominant Germanic element. 
They suffered with the rest of the population from 
the prevailing unemployment, but, in addition, also 
because there were few skilled artisans among them 
and because there were in their number so many 
recent immigrants. Patrick Colquhoun, a Metro- 
politan Police Magistrate, who was deeply interested 
in ameliorating the condition of the masses, called 
attention to the unfortunate state of the Jewish poor 
in his discussion of the general population in two 
pamphlets which he published in 1797 and 1799, re- 
spectively. Joshua Van Oven, a Jewish physician 
and communal worker, thereupon set to work to 
remedy conditions. In a pamphlet addressed to 
Colquhoun, entitled ‘Letters on the Present State of 
the Jewish Poor in the Metropolis,” etc., published 
in 1802, Van Oven pictures the situation as it then 
obtained in the large German Jewish community, to 
which poor strangers, besides local poor, then at- 
tached themselves. There was no cooperation be- 
tween the three synagogues in alleviating distress. 
The manner of dispensing charity was “‘vague.”’ No 
attempt was made to help the poor become self- 
supporting. Van Oven accordingly advocated the 
establishment of ‘‘a House of industry which should 
take in the helpless, poor and children, and have an 


L72 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


attached hospital for the sick . . . and which at the 
same time should comprehend assisting the out-poor 
with occasional relief.” 

In a pamphlet written the same year by L. Alex- 
ander in answer to Van Oven’s pamphlet we are told 
that the Boards of Management of the Synagogues 
had no proper conception of what constituted ade- 
quate relief and were not free from harshness to- 
wards the poor. 

Van Oven’s labors led to the establishment of the 
Jews’ Hospital in Mile End (which grew subse- 
quently into the Jews’ Hospital and Orphan Asylum) 
and started a general reformation in the Jewish phi- 
lanthropic activities in London. ‘The movement 
progressed rather slowly. Lack of codperation be- 
tween congregations and indiscriminate, uninvesti- 
gated giving continued as glaring faults, until in 
1859, the year following the political emancipation 
of the Jews in England—and one of the fruits of 
that event—the Jewish Board of Guardians was 
formed. This organization established the London 
Jewish charities on a sound modern footing. Among 
the first measures the Board took was the institution 
of industrial and loan departments.’ 

In Paris the Jewish community at the time of the 

*Rey. A. Cohen: “Metropolitan Jewry at the Beginning of the 
Nineteenth Century’—London Jewish Chronicle (Supplement), Dec. 
rapper Magnus: The Jewish Board of Guardians and the 


Men Who Made It, pp. 9-57. The Jewish Board of Guardians, 
London, 1909. 


CHANGING CONDITIONS 173 


French Revolution was in a state of chaos resembling 
that of London at the same period. With some 
notable exceptions, the community, numbering 2700 
in 1806, was a poor one. There were seven Chebrot 
or Mutual Benefit Societies. “Those who could not 
afford to pay dues, and strangers, did not receive 
help from these societies. ‘The first attempt to co- 
ordinate these societies and to regulate the Jewish 
charity dates from November 24, 1809. Under the 
impulse of the Consistory conferences were called, 
resulting in the founding of the ‘‘Comité consistorial 
de secours et d’encouragement.”’ Note the connec- 
tion here, as in England, between political emanci- 
pation and philanthropic advance. 

The members of the ‘‘Comité de secours” were 
charged with duties which were by no means novel in 
Jewish charitable endeavor, namely, with caring for 
the sick poor, and with extending comfort and aid in 
time of death. In these respects its objects were vir- 
tually the same as those of the traditional Chebrah 
Kaddishah societies. But it represented a real ad- 
vance, a new departure, in fact, in two directions, 
namely in that it was to act as the coordinating and 
authoritative agency for the entire community and 
to stand ready to handle all cases of poverty. 

Besides its defined objects, the ‘“‘Comité de se- 
cours” presented every year to the Consistory ten 
children, between thirteen and fifteen years old, to be 
apprenticed in arts and handicrafts. Prevention is 
thus seen to receive greater attention than it did 


174 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


before. In 1828, the Committee attempted to 
grapple with the problem of mendicancy, but without 
success. In 1852 this Committee became the 
“Comité de bienfaisance’”’ and proceeded to the crea- 
tion of establishments where all kinds of suffering 
and feebleness could be assuaged.® 

The communities of London and Paris have been 
cited as instructive examples of the changing char- 
acter of Jewish charities in the large centers of popu- 
lation in the early years of the 19th century. De- 
velopment in other large communities followed a 
course similar in general outlines, local conditions 
and events coloring and modifying the changes in — 
each instance. 


We have surveyed the broad aspects of Jewish 
philantrophic thought and effort up to the point 
where initial steps were taken in the more advanced 
communities to reorganize the resources and facili- 
ties with a view to adapting them to the newer con- 
ditions and opportunities and demands which the 
Jewish people faced in modern times. It is not 
within the scope of this study to trace the rapid and 
varied development which has followed since then. 
The nineteenth century witnessed a remarkably rich 
expansion in resources, effort and machinery. It and 
the first quarter of the 20th century have been an 

*Léon Kahn: Le Comité de Bienfaisance, pp. 5-27, A. Durlacher, 


Paris, 1886; Maxime du Camp: Paris Bienfaisant, pp. 291-301. 
Librairie Hachette et Cie, Paris, 1888. 


CHANGING CONDITIONS iy 


era of superb creativeness in Jewish philanthropic 
endeavor and of high intelligence in its practical 
application. Jewish philanthropy has demonstrated 
a capacity for coping with all the grave problems 
that arose, including the care of the vast tide of 
immigration which came to America in consequence 
of political and economic disabilities suffered by Jews 
in backward countries of the Old World. 

Communal philanthropic organization has ad- 
vanced in the larger cities, particularly in America, 
to a stage where not only all relief agencies function 
under one centralized direction with trained social 
workers; but where all philanthropic organizations 
and activities of consequence are federated and work 
under one intelligent guidance. Considerable head- 
way has been made in reducing the number of perma- 
nent dependents and increasing the proportion of the 
self-supporting. All types and varieties of relief, 
correctional, educational and recreational agencies, 
have been created and developed and the best ideas 
and standards introduced in their operation. Co- 
operation has been established between the various 
communities, particularly in the United States. The 
National Conference of Jewish Social Service, organ- 
ized in 1899, was largely instrumental in promoting 
this codperation. Through measures adopted by it, 
Jewish vagrancy has been reduced to negligible pro- 
portions. The problem of desertion has been at- 
tacked with success by the newly created National 
Desertion Bureau. Trade schools and other agen- 


176 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


cies which prepare for industrial life have been insti- 
tuted. Special attention has been devoted to the 
needs and care of immigrants. All of these agencies 
are conducted along the most modern scientific lines, 
while at the same time retaining the humane and 
sympathetic character of traditional Jewish aid in the 
treatment of their beneficiaries. In the United 
States alone there are over two thousand organiza- 
tions, with an annual budget exceeding $10,000,000, 
the whole forming a complete structure offering 
every conceivable kind of assistance. 

National institutions and organizations, including 
agencies for aiding immigrants and for the promo- 
tion of the physical and social welfare of young 
people, and a school for instruction in agricultural 
pursuits (The National Farm School), have been 
brought into being and are functioning well in their 
respective spheres. 

In the chief European countries national organiza- 
tions engaged in founding and maintaining trade and 
general schools among their Jewish co-religionists in 
backward countries, particularly in the Orient, were 
created during the last decades of the nineteenth 
century. [heir work has been far-reaching. ‘The 
Alliance Israélite Universelle of Paris, the Anglo- 
Jewish Association of London and the Hilfsverein 
der Deutschen Juden of Berlin have been the leaders 
in this important direction. The Jewish Coloniza- 
tion Association, founded and heavily endowed by 
Baron de Hirsch of France in 1891, possessing a 


CHANGING CONDITIONS 177 


capital of £8,000,000, in 1896, with headquarters in 
Paris and offices in London and other large centers, 
has made it its special business to look after the 
welfare of the vast streams of emigrants who have 
left lands where they were persecuted or denied eco- 
nomic opportunities. It has encouraged and subsi- 
dized agricultural colonies in the United States and 
in the Argentine, provided funds and agencies for 
the distribution of immigrants into uncongested lo- 
calities and established schools and welfare agencies 
for working people. 

Emergency relief of an international character 
was organized at the time of the Russian pogroms in 
1907 and attained vast proportions and a high de- 
gree of organization during the Great War and the 
post-war years. Over $50,000,000 were collected by 
the Jews of America alone during this period, and 
administered by a large staff of trained workers in 
relief measures and in the institution of the elements 
of self-support among the millions of stricken people. 
Non-Jews were included among the beneficiaries in 
many of the regions affected. 

This brief sketch of the development of Jewish 
philanthropy during the contemporary period is out- 
side the domain of our study. It is presented here, 
nevertheless, in order to round off the story of Jew- 
ish benevolence. The reader will find it comparatively 
easy to inform himself on the modern period through 
the many sources available.® 

*See Bibliography under caption, “Modern Times.” 


CHAPTER XII 


CONCLUSION 


WE have traced the broad outlines of the stream 
of Jewish philanthropy from ancient times to the 
beginnings of the period of emancipation. No at- 
tempt at completeness has been made or claimed. 
The expanse is too vast and the contacts too numer-_ 
ous to render the task an easy one. 

It is now in place to make a few general observa- 
tions based on the survey of the entire movement as 
it has proceeded through the ages. 

At the outset it must be stated that philanthropy 
is not a uniquely Jewish manifestation. With 
Kohler, we are far from claiming charity to be an 
exclusive Jewish virtue. ‘The passion to help the 
poor and distressed is planted deep in the hearts of 
all men and its effectual expression in sentiment and 
action is found among all. But it may be said with- 
out exaggeration and without reflection on any other 
class of men, that this passion has worked with 
special warmth and glow among Jews and that they, 
as a group, have shown an extraordinary leaning for 
works of beneficence. 


*“The Historical Development of Jewish Charity,” Hebrew 
Union College and Other Addresses, Cincinnati, 1915, p. 230. 


178 


CONCLUSION 179 


Jewish philanthropy, as seen in retrospect, em- 
braced a much wider field of service than the giving 
of alms. In theory and in practice alike it tran- 
scended mere relief of the elementary physical wants. 
In the first place, it emphasized the charity of love as 
well as the charity of alms. In the Biblical period, 
under the influence of the prophets and kindred spir- 
its, poverty was recognized and treated as an integral 
phase of the problem of social justice. During the 
Talmudic and later rabbinical epoch, the economic 
bearings of want and dependency, while not alto- 
gether lost sight of, receded from the Jewish con- 
sciousness, owing to the all-important circumstance 
of Jewish political disability and lack of ultimate self- 
determination. In the modern era, the relation of 
social righteousness to poverty has again found 
articulation. 

While poverty has been looked upon in Jewish 
life as possessing disciplinary values and in no sense 
as a disgrace, it was virtually always classed as a 
misfortune. It was never idealized as a mode of life 
to be voluntarily chosen. With the possible excep- 
tion of the Essenes ? in ancient times, no class or 
groups of men and women arose, as in Christian, 
Moslem and Buddhist life, that adopted destitution 
as the divinely-desired way of existence. No sacred 
orders of cloistered or mendicant monks, opposed 

*“The Essenes were despisers of riches, but they were not wor- 


shippers of poverty.” Israel Abrahams: Studies in Pharisaism and 
the Gospels, Cambridge University Press, 1917, p. 8. 


180 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


on principle to earning a livelihood, corresponding 
to the Franciscans or the Buddhist orders of mon- 
astic beggars, sprang up. The spirit of the Jewish 
religion worked against such excesses. It made for 
sanity of action. Pauperization, of which Lecky ? 
complains as a grave blemish associated with ascetic 
life, in the otherwise distinguished history of Chris- 
tian charity, never found a congenial soil in Jewish 
benevolence. 

This very sanity of Judaism, however, prevented 
Jewish charity from engaging in one type of service 
in which Christian charity did useful work. There 
was little of that complete self-effacement, that eager © 
and mystic self-abandon which expressed itself 
among Christians in loving ministrations to the out- 
casts of society. 

On the other hand, Jewish charity was at no time 
in its long history blemished by harsh treatment of 
the poor and friendless. One may search in vain for 
severe handling even of impostors. Cruelties of 
branding or public degradation in the stocks or im- 
prisonment, such as mar the administration of the 
English Poor Laws, so severely denounced by 
Nicholls,* are altogether unknown among Jews. 
Kindly and sympathetic treatment was the invariable 
rule and practice. 

There is marked fixity and rigidity in the processes 


“History of European Morals, New York and London, Appleton 
& Co., 1919, Vol. 2, p. 85 f. 

*Sir George Nicholls: 4 History of the English Poor Law, 2 Vols. 
Putnam’s, N. Y., 1898, Vol. 1, pp. 67, 97, 104, 116, 211, 235. 


CONCLUSION (81 


of charity during the Talmudic and medieval era. 
But this was more so in the theory than in the appli- 
cation. In ancient times and again in modern, plia- 
bility is the prevailing note. 

The springs of action that moved people to give 
aid were various and always complex. They ranged 
from the crudest motives of self-interest to the 
noblest impulses of altruism. Justice and humani- 
tarian considerations appear early in Biblical days, 
side by side with personal and social utilitarian aims. 
In the rabbinical era the motive of salvation in the 
hereafter plays a prominent, perhaps the dominant 
role, as it does in Christian life in the corresponding 
age, although the penitential appeal does not appear 
to have sunk quite so deep nor spread so far in Jewish 
existence as in Christian, Moslem or Buddhist. In 
the modern era, pity and unselfishness again forge to 
the front as the controlling, virtually the exclusive 
considerations. 

The scope of Jewish philanthropic endeavor was 
broad in its inclusiveness. Every type of ministra- 
tion within the purview of human aid appreciated at 
the time received formulation and met with attention. 
The range of possible beneficiaries covered all 
classes, except (until the modern era) delinquents. 
Non-Jews were included among those aided, unlike 
the prevailing practice among Christians in relation 
to Jews. 

Looked at by and large, the history of Jewish 
philanthropy is an honorable one, distinguished for 


182 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


achievement and duration and crowned with noble 
service. It is a telling factor in humanity’s chain of 
endeavor to lift the fallen and to bring man nearer | 


to his brother. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
GENERAL 


New York Public Library. List of Works Relating to the 
History and Condition of the Jews in the Various 
Countries. Subdivision Charities. (In the Bulletin 
of the N. Y. Public Library, Oct. 1913.) The 
“List” also printed separately, N. Y. 1914. 

Systematic Index to the Literature about the Jews in the 
Russian Language, 1708-1889. (In Russian.) St. 
Petersburg, A. E. Landau, 1893. Charity, Nos. 
2053-2266. Cf. also Index of Subjects, s. v. 
“Charity,: p. 551. 

Bogen, Boris. Jewish Philanthropy, New York, Mac- 
millan, 1917. Chap. 3, ‘Charity among the Jews,” 
pp. 16-26. 

Goodman, Paul. Die Liebestatigkeit im Judenthum. 
Frankfurt a. M., 1913. Also in Volkschriften uber 
die jtdische Religion, edited by I. Ziegler, Vol. 1, 
Part 6, Frankfurt a. M., 1913. 

Kohler, Kaufman. “The Historical Development of Jew- 
ish Charity,” in Hebrew Union College and Other 
Addresses. Ark. Pub. Co., Cincinnati, 1915. 

—— “Charity and Charitable Institutions,” in Jewish 
Encyclopedia. 

“Zum Kapitel der jiidischen Wohlthatigkeitspflege,” 
in Festschrift zum Geburtstage A. Berliner’s, Berlin, 
1903, Pp. 195-203. 

Lewis, Harry S. Liberal Judaism and Social Service, New 
York, Bloch Pub. Co., 1915. 

Loch, Charles Stuart. ‘Charity and Charities.’ Ency- 
clopedia Britannica. 

183 





184 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


BIBLICAL ‘TIMES 


Cros-Mayrevielle, G. ‘“L’Assistance chez les Hébreux,” 
La Révue philanthropique, Vol. 44 (1923), pp. 
61-67. 

Fluegel, M. The Benevolence and Humanity Laws of the 
Bible. Baltimore, 1911. 

Lallemand, Léon. Histoire de la Charité, 3 vols., Paris, 
1902-1906, Vol. 1, pp. I-23. 

Levinger, Lee J. ‘The Development of Charity in 
Biblical Times,” Hebrew Union College Monthly, 


Jan., 1915. 


EARLY SYNAGOGUE CHARITY ORGANIZATION 


Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. “Découverte a Jérusalem d’une 
Synagogue de l’Epoque Hérodienne,” in Syria, Vol. 
I (1921), pp. 190-197. 

Cook, Stanley A. ‘The Synagogue of Theodotos at Jeru- 
salem,” Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly State- 
ment, Jan., 1921. 

Krauss, Samuel. Synagogale Altertiimer, Berlin und Wien, 
Benjamin Harz, 1922, pp. 52-267. 

Lehmann, Joseph. ‘Assistance Publique et Privée d’aprés 
Antique Législation Juive,’ Révue des Etudes 
Juives, Vol. 35 (1897), Appendix, pp. i-xxxviil. 

Marmorstein, A. “The Inscription of ‘Theodotos,” Pales- 
tine Exploration Fund, Jan., 1921, pp. 23-28. 

Schiirer, Emil. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 3 Vols., 
Leipzig, 1901 (4th edit.), Vol. 2, pp. 499-536. 


TALMUD AND RABBINIC WorKS 


Mishnah. ‘Treatise Peah 8:7-9. 
Tosephta. Peah 4:8-21 (Zuckermandel edition, pp. 23-25). 
Jerusalem Talmud. Peah 8:6-8. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 


Babylonian Talmud. Chief passages: Taanit 20a-21a; 
Ketubot 67a-68a; Baba Batra 8a-11a. 

Midrash Rabbah. Passim. 

Pirke d’ Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 17. 
‘Translated and annotated with introduction and 
indices by Gerald Friedlander, London, Kegan Paul, 
1916, 

Bachya ben Joseph Ibn Pakuda (11th cent.), Chobot ha- 

Lebabot. Many editions. ‘The original Arabic text 

entitled, d/-Hidaja Ila Farad id Al Qulub, was edited 

by A. 5S. Yahuda, Leyden, 1912. 

The Duties of the Heart. Translated by Edwin 

Collins, London, 1905, pp. 26-30. 

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 A.D.), Mishneh Torah, 
Sections Matnot Aniyyim; Hilkot Teshubah, Ch. 10, 
par. 1 and 2; Hilkot Megillah, Ch. 2, par. 15-17. 

Judah he-Chasid. Sefer Chasidim (c. 1200). Bologna 
edition, 1538. Sections 125, 327, 519, 544, 595, 
720, 874, 1033, 1035, 1038-1042, 1044. The Berlin 
edition (1903) has no section corresponding to section 
125 in the Bologna edition. The other sections 
correspond successively as follows: 901, 1913, 1967, 
21, 311, 675, 1678, 1683, 1691, 884, 1696, 862, 
861, 865. 

Aaron ben Joseph Halevi (13th cent.) Sefer ha-Chinnuk, 
sections 63-66, 84, 216, 330, 479. 

Isaac Aboab the Elder (13th cent.) Menorat ha-Maor, 
Sections 186-221. 

Jacob ben Asher (14th cent.) Tur, Yoreh Deah. Hilkot 
Zedakah. 

Joseph Caro (1488-1575). Shulchan Aruk, Yoreh Deah. 

Hilkot Zedakah. 

Section on Charity from the Shulchan Arukh. 
Translated by Louis Feinberg, “Studies in Social 
Work,” No. 6, N. Y. School of Philanthropy, Nov., 


1915. 








186 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Moses of Przemysl (16th cent.) Matteh Mosheh, Chap. 
2-7, on Zedakah and Gemilut Chasadim. 

Manasseh ben Israel. Jhesauro Dos Dinim, Amsterdam, 
1655. 

Elijah ben Solomon Abraham ha-Kohen. Meil Zedakah 
(1704). 

Isaac Lampronti (18th cent.) Pachad Yizchak, s.v. Zedakah. 


MopEernN Works RELATING TO THE TALMUDIC PERIOD 


Blau, Joel. ‘“The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature,” 
in Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, N. Y., Bloch 
Pub. Co., 1975: 

Goldschmidt, $. Die soziale Fiirsorge in der jiidischen Re- 
ligion, Kattowitz, 1913. 

Hamburger, J. Real-Encyclopadie, s.v. Armenversorge, 
Armenpflege, Vol. I, p. 107. 

Iterson, Aart Van. Armenzorg bij de Joden in Palestina 
van 100 v. Chr.—z200 n. Chr. Leiden, 1911. 
Montefiore, Claude G. ‘Hebrew Charity,” in Jewish 

Chronicle (London), May 9, 16 and 23, 1884. 
Peppercorne, James W. The Laws of the Hebrews Re- 
lating to the Poor, London, 1840. 
Reichler, Max. ‘Jewish Eugenics,” in Jewish Eugenics 
and Other Essays, N. Y., Bloch Pub. Co., 1915. 


Mippie AGEs 


Abrahams, Israel. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, Jewish 
Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1911, Chap. 17 
and 18. 

Addison, Lancelot. The Present State of the Jews (in 
Barbary). 3d edition, London, 1682. 

Baas, K. ‘“Judische Spitaler in Mittelalter. Monatschrift 
fur Gesch, und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1911, 
p. 745, and 1913, p. 452. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 187 


Badinet, Léon. | “Antiquité et Organisation des Juiveries 
du Comtat Venaissin.” Révue des Etudes Juives, 
Vol. I (1880), pp. 262-292. 

Berliner, A. Geschichte der Juden in Rom. Frankfurt a. 
M., J. Kaufman, 1893. ‘Two volumes in one. 

De Maulde, R. “Les Juifs des Etats francais du Pape au 

Moyen Age,” Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 7, p. 

aan Vor Os pent 1a; 

Les Juifs dans les Etats francais du Saint-Siége au 
Moyen Age, Paris, H. Champion, 1886. 

Haase, Heinrich. ‘Die Wohlfahrtspflege bei den Juden,” 
in M. Grunwald’s Die Hygiene der Juden, Dres- 
den, 1911. Appendix, pp. i-xliv. 

Kayserling, M. Die Juden in Navarra, den Baskenlaendern 

und auf den Balearen, Berlin, 1861. 

“Ein Verein der jiidischen Schuhmacher in Sara- 
gossa,” in Allegemeine Zeitung des. Judenthums, 
Vol. 56, Sept. 9, 1892. 

Loeb, Isidor. ‘“‘Réglement des Juives de Castille en 1432,” 
Révue des Etudes Juives, Vol. 13, pp. 187-216. 

Mann, Jacob. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under 
the Fatimid Caliphs, 2 Vols. Oxford University 
Press, 1920-1922. Vol. 1, pp. 87-95, 204-205, 232, 244. 

Neubauer, Ad. “Le Memorbuch de Mayence,” Révue des 
Etudes Juives, Vol. 4, p. 14. 

Medieval Jewish Chronicles, Oxford, 1887, Vol. 

ou.veetao f. 

Sonnenschein, $8. H. Hebrew Charities during the Middle 
Ages. Paper read before National Conference of 
Charities and Corrections, 1883. 

Vogelstein und Rieger. Geschichte der Juden in Rom. 2 
Vols. Berlin, 1896. 


IopERN ‘TIMES 


Bogen, Boris. Jewish Philanthropy, Macmillan Co., N. Y., 
1917. 











188 JEWISH PHILANTHROPY 


Cohen, Israel. Jewish Life in Modern Times, Dodd, Mead 
& Co., N. Y., 1914, Chap. 5, “Philanthropy.” 

Du Camp, Maxime. Paris Bienfaisant, Hachette, Paris, 
1888, Chap. 4, “La Charité d’Israel,” pp. 291-440. 

Feuerlicht, M. and A. Hirschberg. ‘“The Jews,” in Charles 
Richmond Henderson’s Modern Methods of Charity, 
Macmillan Co., N. Y., 1904. 

Frankel, Lee K. “Charity and Charities” (last section), 
Jewish Encyclopedia. 

Kahn, Léon. La Comité de Bienfaisance, A. Durlacher, 

Paris, 1886. 
Les Sociétés de Secours Mutuels Philanthropique 
et de Prévoyance, A. Durlacher, Paris, 1887. 
Lindo, E. H. dA Jewish Calendar for Sixty-four Years, 
L. Thompson, London, 1838. Section, ‘Religious 
and Charitable Institutions of the Jews, in London,” 
pp. IOI-104. 

Magnus, Laurie. The Jewish Board of Guardians and the 
Men Who Made It, The Jewish Board of Guar- 
dians, London, 1909. . 

National Conference of Jewish Charities. Proceedings, 
1902-1918. 

Rosenberg, Leo. ‘‘Armenwesen und soziale Fiirsorge im 
Ostjudentum,” in Der Jude, Herausgeber M. Buber, 
Vol. I, pp. 737-750, Vol. 2, pp. 321-339, Berlin, 
IQI7. 

Statutes of Congregations and Societies of Various Com- 
munities. See Chap. 10, Note 51, and Chap. 11, 
Notes 1, 2, 3 and 4. 





INDEX 


Aaron, 135 

Aaron ben Joseph Halevi, 70, 
93, 138, note 1 

Abraham, 18, 76, 82, 95, 144 

Abrahams, Israel, 97, 105, note 
oy iO7,. tit; note 29; 131, 
143,. note 6; 147, note 11; 
152, note 28; 154, 158, 179 

Academies, 43, 45 

Achillion, 33 

Achsanya, 143 ff. 

Adam, 76, 94 

Addison, Launcelot, 128 

Adiabene, 100 

Administration. See 
“Public Relief and 
ministration” 

Administrators of Charity, 39, 
AO; A0,a10%, 100, “105, 108 ff., 
132 

Africa, 34 

Agadta, 69 

Aged, 159 

Agricultural provisions for 
poor in Biblical times, 10- 
14 

Aheb, 4 

Aix, 163 

Alexander, L., 172 

Alexandria, 33, 36, 
162 

Algiers, 153 

Alienation of homestead, 10 

Almsgiving, 28-30 

Almshouses, 142 

Amalgamation, 165 ff. 

America, 169, 175, 177 

Ammon, 66 


Chapter, 
its Ad- 


100, 151, 


Amos, 5, 6 

Amount of giving, 56, 118 f. 

Amsterdam, 104, note 113 105, 
note 14; 107, note 18; 159, 
164, note 4 

Apocrypha, 25-30 

Arabs, 151 

Arbaah Turim, 64-67 

Arragon, 163 

Asceticism, 179 

Ascoli, Isaac, 152, note 30; 166, 
note 2 

Asher ben Yechiel, 131, 156 

Asia Minor, 34 

Assi, 55 

Atonement, Day of, 7, 30, 56, 
82, 37, 105 

Auberge Juive, 146 

Avignon, 128, 150 


Baas, K., 147, note 113 148, 149, 
154-155 

Babylonian Academies, 45 

Babylonian Talmud, 53 

Bachya ben Asher, 98, note 21 

Bachya Ibn Pakuda, 71, 89 

Balaban, M., 153, note 
154, note 35 

Bagdad, 141 

Barbary, 128 

Basilica, 35 

Beggars and begging, 52, 107, 
117, 126-129, 180 

Benjamin of Tudela, 141-142 

Ben Sira, 25-28 

Berliner, A., 134, note 6; 158 

Bet Din, 79, 128, 138 

Bethel, 5 


31; 


189 


190 


Bethsur, 14 

Biblical episodes, 17-18 

Biblical influence on later char- 
ity, 46 

Billetten, 146 

Blau, Joel, 133, note 4 

Board of Guardians, 172 

Boaz, 18 

“Book of Pedagogy” (or Edu- 
cation), 70, 93, note 5 

“Book of the Pious,” 70 

Brest-Litovsk, 128, 138, note 2 

Brisch, Carl, 148 

Brotherhood of man, 10, 12 

“Brother, thy,.the needy,” 8 

Buddhist charity, 51, 150, 179, 
181 


Burdett, Sir Henry, 150, note 
245 98% 
Burial fund and burial ex- 


penses, 101, III, 123 
Burial societies, 97, 
167 
Byzantium, 161 


156-157, 


Calahorra, David, 152 

Cairo, 153. See also “Kahira” 

“Candelabra of Light,” 70, 93, 
note 2 

Captives, 
161 ff. 

Caro, Joseph, 45, 67, 68, 79, 101, 
107, 114, 122, 126, note 2 

Castille, 150 

Cemeteries, 142 

Certificates, 128, 129 

Chaberim, 97 

Chalukkah, 163 

Chamber of Whispers or Si- 
lence or Unostentation, 35, 
37, 63 

Chananiah ben Teradyon, 63, 
76, note 6; 111, note 30 

Charity box, 87 

Charity commanded not _ re- 
quested, 9; importance of do- 
ng, 55 

Chasidim, 97 


redemption of, 116, 


INDEX 


Chebrah Kaddishah, 156, 173 

Chebrot, 173 

Chesed, 77 

Children, claims of, 59 

Chobot Ha-Lebabot, 71 

Christianity and Christians, 22, 
81, 85, 127, 134, 136, 153, 163, 
179-184 

Church, Christian, 37, 40, 126, 
130, 153 

Cleopatra, 33 

Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, 34, 
38 

Clinic, free, 154 

Clothing fund, 101, 117, 159 

Coblenz, 150 

Codes, 61, 68, note 6; 69 

Cohen, Rev. A., 172, note 6 

Cohen, Saul Astruc, 136, 153 

Cohon, Samuel S., 136 

Collections, public, 101-108, 137 

Collectors of charity, 53. See 
also “Administrators of Char- 
ity” 

Collins, Edwin, 73 

Cologne, 148 

Colquhoun, Peter, 171 

Comité de bienfaissance, 

Comité de secours, 173, 

Communal centers, 33-40 

Communal obligation, 79, 1o1 

Congregation, the medium of 
organized charity, 38-40 

Consideration, 75, 117, 127, 180 

Consistory, 173 

Consolation, meal of, 97 

Constitutions and by-laws of 
congregations and _ societies, 
108, 167. See also “Statutes” 

Cook, Stanley A., 34, note 4; 
38 

Coérdination and consolidation, 
170 ff., 175 

Corners of field, 11, 49, 78 

Councils, 45 

Council of Four hands, 
138, note 2 

Cracow, 154, 152 


174 
174 


128, 


INDEX 


Crafts, 36 

Crémieux, Ad., 150, ‘note 22 
Crusades, 108, 145 

Cyprus, 100 


David, 76 

Debts, 11, 19, 49 

Defectives, 132 

Degrees of charity, eight, 62 

Delta region, 33 

De Maulde, R., 128, note 9 

Democracy, 80 

Dependent classes, 11, 75, 175 

Desertion Bureau, National, 
176 

Deuteronomy, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22 

Dowries. See “Marriage dow- 
ers” 

Duplication, 119 

“Duties of the Heart,” 71, 89 


Ecclesiastes, 16, 125 

Ecclesiasticus, 25-28 

Economic conditions — relation 
to poverty, 5, 6, 7, 12, 15, 16, 
23 

Education, 111, 149 

Egypt, 32, 33, 34, 88, note 9; 
105, 161 

Egyptian charity, 150 

Egyptian experiences—influence 
on charity and humanity, 12, 
17 

Eleazar ben Porta, 76, note 6 

Eleazar of Birta, 96, 104, note 
10 

Eleazar II (ben Pedat), 94 

Eleazar the Levite, 131 

Elijah, 4 

Elijah ben Solomon Abraham 
Hakohen, 70, 94 

Emancipation, 43 f., 140, 168 ff. 

Embarrassment, sparing the 
poor, 56, 60, 62-63, 117, 127 

England, 128, 171-174, 180 

Ephraim, R., 122, note 5 

Equality of all men, 10, 115 

Essenes, 179 


IgI 


Ethical Will, 131, 132, note 3 

Ethical works, 61, 69, 71 

Ethics of the Fathers, 48 

Euergetes Ptolemy, 33 

Eve, 94 

Exploitation, 5, 15, 16, 17, 25, 
26 

Ezekiel, 7, note 5; 13 


Fabiola, 144 

Federation movement, 175 ff, 

Feinberg, Louis, 68, note 5 

Ferdinand, King, 163 

Ferrara, 155 

First fruits, 11, 14 

Fitz-Gerald, M., 34, 
38 

“Follow-up” work, 118 

Food fund, rox 

Forgotten sheaves, 11, 49 

Four Lands, Council of, 
138, note 2 

“Four Rows,” 64-67, 83 

France, 153, 169, 173-174 

Francis, St., of Assisi, 126 

Franciscans, 180 

Frankfurt, 155, 159 

Fraternities, 157-158 

Free will offerings, 103 ff., 167, 
note 3 

French Revolution, 168-169 

Friedlander, Gerald, 93, note 4 

Friendly visiting, 111, 159 

Funerals, 76, 95 


note 4; 


128, 


Gabbai Zedakah, 39, 40, 100 
Gad, 13 
Gamaliel, 95 
Gamliel ben Judah, 125 
Gemara, 53 
Gemilut Chasadim, 
91-99. 
Generosity, 56 
Germany, 131, 146, 162, 167 
Ghetto, 134, note 6; 153, 168 
Ginzberg, Louis, 61, 68, note 6 
Gleanings, 11, 13, 49, 78, note 
12 


69, 77; 89; 


192 


God as exemplar, 76; source 
and proprietor of all goods, 
77, 78, 94 

Governments, influence of, 44 

Graetz, Herman, 108, note 24 

Greece, 34, 85 

Greek charity, 85, 143, 150 

Grodno, 128, 138, note 2 

“Guide for (or to) the Per- 
plexed,” 93, note 4 

Guilds, 36, 157-158 


Haase, Heinrich, 158, note 43 

Habakkuk, 77 

Haggadah, 69 

Haknasat Orchim, 98, 147 

Halakah, 69, 82 

Hamadan, 151 

Hamburg, 167 

Haphtarah for Day of Atone- 
ment, 7 

Hekdesh, 146, 147 ff. 

Helena, Queen, of Adriabene, 
100 

Hepner, A., and Herzberg, J., 
127, note 7; 153 

Herodian period, 34 

Hilkot Zedakah, 64, 68 

Hillel, 135 

Holy Land. See “Palestine” 

Holy League, 156 

Homiletical literature, 69 

Hospitality, 143, 146, 151 

Hospitals, 133, 141, 144, 
155, 167 

Huna, 56, 95, 98 


150- 


Immigrants, 176 
Imposition and 
126, 128, 180 
Indolence, 80, 126 

Industry. See “Labor” 

Inns, 107 

Inspirational sources other than 
codes, 69 

Isaac, 76 

Isaac Aboab the Elder, 70, 92, 


94 


impostors, 80, 


INDEX 


Isaac ben Moses, 94, note 8 
Isaac, Rabbi, 56 

Isabella, Queen, 163 

Isaiah of Jerusalem, 6, 7, 76 
Isaiah (II) of Babylon, 7, 82 
Ishmael Ha-Kohen, 133, note 5 
Isserles, Moses, 126, note 2 


Italy, 34, 117, 136, 146, 167 


Jacob ben Asher, 45, 64, 68, 
note 6; 77, 79, 83, 121-122, 131 

Jacobs, Joseph, 147, note 11 

Jehudah ben Asher, 82 

Jehudah (II) ben Gamliel, 144 

Jehudah ben Kallonymos, 122, 
note 51 

Jehudah Ha-Nasi, 48, 52, 130 

Jeremiah, 8 

Jeroboam II, 18, 25 

Jerome, St., 144 

Jerusalem Talmud, 53 

Jerushalmi, 53 

Jerusalem, 4, 5, 32, 34, 100, 105, 
note 12 

Jesus, 30 

Jewish and non-Jewish philan- 
thropy compared, 22, 39 

Jezebel, 4, note 1 

Job 16, 18, 21, 29 

Jochanan, 57, 59 

Jonah, Rabbi, 75 

Jose ben Jochanan, 145 

Josephus, 14, note 9; 
note 12}; 100 

Josiah, 8 

Jubilee, law of, 10, 13, 19 

Judah, 5 

Judan, 58 

Judea, 100 

Julian the Apostate, 127, note 5 

Justice as a motive and mode 
of charity, 6-8, 20, 82, 92, 179, 
181. 


34, 78, 


Kahana, 59 

Kahira, 88, note 9; 105 
Kahn, Leon, 174, note 8 
Kamis, Guiseppe, 152 


INDEX 


Kayserling, M., 158 

Kibbuz, 129 

Kiddush, 36 

Kohler, Kaufman, 22, 99, 100, 
127, note .§ 571738 

Krauss, Samuel, 33, 34, note 5 

Kuppah, 49, 50, 101 ff. 


Labor, 59, 80, 125 

Landlords, 5 

Lauterbach, Jacob Z., 134-135 

Lauingen, 150 

Lazarus, Moritz, 85 

Lecky, 22, 180 

Leghorn, 159 

Lehmann, Joseph, 9, note 6; 37, 
note 10; 78, note 13}; 100, 
note 2 

Leontopolis, 32 

Letters of Collection, 129 

Liezer, 113 

Lindo, E. H., 159, note 50; 167, 
note 5 

Lishkat Chasaim, 35, 37, 63 

Lithuania, 728 

Loans, 52, 59, 91, 95, 98, 114, 
159, 167 

Loch, Charles Stuart, 22, 81 

Lodging, 49, 146 

Loeb, Isidor, 150, note 213; 163, 
note 54 

London, 159, 167, 171-172 

Love and loving-kindness as 
motives and modes of charity, 
22, 53, 55, 57, 76, 77, 82, 85, 
88-90, 92-99, 179 

Lowenstein, Dr. L., 
20 

Liinel, 153 

Luria, Isaac, 121, note 49 


150, note 


Maamad, 82 

Maaser Ani, 130 

Maaser Sheni, 130 

Maccabees; Maccabean, 14, 29, 


31 
Madrid, 142 
Magnus, Laurie, 172, note 7 


193 


Maimonides, Moses, 45, 52, 61- 
64, 67, 68, note 6; 77, 78, 79, 
$2,058, (89, -93,. 101, 102,/\107; 
12%, 135, 136, 153, 154, 162 

Malachi 6, note 2 

Manasseh, 13 

Mann, Jacob, 39, 88, note 9; 
161 

Mantua, 159 

Marriage dowers, 49, 96, 98, 
III, 117, 123, 129, 138, 159, 
121-124, 128, 160 

Marseilles, 150, 155, 163 

Martyrs, 149 

Matatia, 153 

Matnot Aniyyim, 64 

Matteh Mosheh, 70, 93, note 3 

Matthew, 30 

Meal tickets, 117 

Medical treatment, 
151-155 

Meil Zedakah, 70 

Meir of Rothenberg, 162 

Meir, Rabbi, 48, 58, 88 

Mendelssohn, Moses, 46, 168 

Menorat Ha-Maor, 70 

Merit, doctrine of, 29, 87 

Micah, 6, 7, 76 

Midrash, 69, 70, 75, 92, 144 

“Mighty Hand,” 61, 64 

Minimum of Allowances, 51, 
121-124, 128, 160; of contri- 


TET, 136; 


butions, 56, 79, 103, 118f., 
124 

Minz, Judah, 117 

Mishnah, 48, 51, 52, 87, 100, 
121, 130 

Mishneh Torah, 61 

Moab, 66 


Modernization of Jewish phi- 
lanthropy, 165 ff. 

Mohammedanism, 81, 141, 150, 
179, 181 

Monasticism, 179 

Monobaz, 53, 57, 87 

Montefiore, Claude G., 64 

Moses of Przemysl, 70, 93, 97; 
note 15 


194 


Motives of Jewish philanthropy 
—in Biblical times, 20, 21; in 
Apocrypha] literature, 25-30; 
in Mishnaic and ‘Talmudic 
literature, 51, 56-58, 80-81; in 
Bachya, 71-73; survey of, in 
Jewish literature, 84-90, 133; 
in Maimonides, 89-90; survey 
of, 179, 181 

Mount Ophel, 34 


Mourners, 76, 95, 156, 158, 
159 

Munich, 148, 150 

Mutual benefit organizations, 
167, 173 


Naboth, 2, note 1 

Narbonne, 149 

National Conference of Jewish 
Social Work, 175 

National Desertion Bureau, 176 

National institutions and _ or- 
ganizations, 176-177 

Neglect of family, 59 

Nehemiah and economic recon- 
struction, 19 

Nehemiah, R., 144 

Neubauer, A., 89, note 93; 105, 
note 12; 149, note 19 

New Testament, 34 

New Year, 30, 87 

Nicholls, Sir George, 127, notes 
4 and 6 

Non-Jews, aid to, 9, 24, 117, 133- 
136, 153, 177, 180; treatment 
at hands of, 155 

Niirnberg, 149, 155 


Obligatory phases of charity, 9, 
XI, 23}. 78, 122;/123 

Offord, Joseph, 33 

Ophel, 34, 38 

Orphan Asylums, 142, 155 

Orphans, 11, 18, 78, 96, 
112, 115, 124, 137 

Orphans’ school, 156 

Or Zarua, 94, note 8 

Ostentation, 6, 30, 35, 37, 63 


¥ er 


INDEX 


Ostia, 144. 
Overseers of 
108 ff. 


Charity, 105, 


Pagan charity, 85 

Palestine, 4, 32, 34, 40, 45, 53, 
130, 159, 163 

Paltiel, 89, 105 

Pandok or Pundok, 143 ff. 

Paris, 170, 171-174 

Parnas, 39, 40, 98, 108, 114 

Parsimony, 56 

Pastoral visiting, 97 

Pauperization, 51, 115, 163 

Peah, 48, 51 

Pedro III, King, 157 

Penitential motive, 21 

Pentateuch charity 
and admonitions, 
key passage, 8, 9 

Personal service, 53, 91 ff. 

Philo, 23, 24 

Pilgrimage festivals, 11 

Pirates, 161-163 

Pirke Abot, 48 

Pledged commodities, 14, 49 

Pletz, Solomon, 55 

Poland, 128, 146 

“Portions of the Poor,” 64 

Posekim, 68 

Posen, 127, note 7; 153 

Poverty—as a discipline, 58, 
179; as an ideal, 125-126 

Prague, 157 

Prevention, 11, 23, 59, 62, II, 
167, 173 

Pride, false, 59 

Primitive charity, 3 

Profiteering, 19 

Prophets the first to show con- 
nection between economic op- 
pression and want, 6; denun- 
ciation of industrial wrongs 
and exploitation by, 5, 6, 7, 
23; motives emphasized by 
the, 21 

Proverbs, 16, 18, 21, 29, 125 

Psalms, the, 15, 16, 23, 82 


legislation 
7-14, 233 


INDEX 


Ptolemy III (Euergetes), 33; 
Physcon, 33 

Public charity funds, ro1-108 

Publicity and secrecy in charity, 


30 

Public relief—general, 55, 100 
Pundyon, 49 

Purim, 18, 64 


Rabba, 82 
Rabbinical law, 42f. 68, 74, 


94 

Rabbinowitz, Samuel P., 129, 
note 10; 138, note 2 

Rav, 59 

Recanati, Manahem, 105, note 
15; 111, note 30; 122, note 51 

Regensburg, 142 

Régné, Jean, 149, note 18 

Regulation, 127-129 

Rehoboam, 18 

Residence, length of residence 
as determining obligation, 52, 
56, 57-58, 101 

Response literature, 69 

Reuben, Gad and Manassah, 
deportation of, 13 

Rewards, types of—emphasized 
in various Biblical books. 
See “Motives” 

Rieger, 39, note 143 136, 158 

Right of poor to assistance, 9, 
note 6; 114, 126 

Roman charity, 85, 144, 150 

Rome, 34, 134, note 6; 158-159 

Rosh Ha-Keneset, 39 

Rotterdam, 159 

Russia, 146 

Ruth, book of, 14 


Saadia, 67 

Sabbath, special charity provi- 
sions for, 49 

Sabbatical year, law of the, 11, 
13, 14, 19 

Saduccees, 16 

Samarkand, 151 


195 


Samuel bar Nachmani, 96, note 
15 

Samuel ben Paltiel, 89, note 9; 
195 

Samuel Ha-Kohen, 154 

Sanctions. See “Motives” 

Sanhedrin, 44 

Saragossa, 157 

Schechter, S., 132, note 3; 135 

Schedia, synagogue of, 33 

Schnorrers, 127 

Scholars, 116, 163 

Schiirer, 34, 39, note 13 

Secrecy and publicity in charity, 
30, 60 

Sefer 
note 

Self-dependence and _ self-sup- 
port, 80, 118, 120, 125 ff. 

Sermon on the Mount, 58 

Servants, 115 

“Set Table,” 67 

Se’udat habraah, 97 

Sheélot, 69 

Sick, 76, 94, 95, 97, TI, 157, 
159 

Shelter’s, 36, 38, 107, 142, 143 ff. 

Shulchan Aruch, 67-68, 122 

Simeon ben Lakesh, 59, 144 

Simlai, 76 

Simon ben Yochai, 56 

Simon the Just, 56 

Simonides, 38 

Simulation of bodily defects, 50 

Social Service, National Confer- 
ence of Jewish, 175 

Social status of needy, consid- 
eration of, 52, 57, 118 f., 121, 
123, 124 

Societies, 137 ff. 

Solomon, 18 

Solomon ben Adret, 149 

Spain, 131, 146 

Spirit of giving, 56, 62-63 

Spontaneous growths of field, 
oa 

Standards of giving, 56-57, 132 

Standards of living, 118 ff. 


Ha-Chinnuk, 70, 93, 


196 


Statutes of congregations and 
societies. See p. 160, note 51 

Strangers, 11, 36, 95, 98, 107 

Subsistence, 56 

Survey of contemporary Jewish 
philanthropy, 174-177; of en- 
tire history, 178-182 

Sympathy, 59 

Synods, 110, note 24; 126, note 
2; 128, 138, note’ 2 

Synagogues—early centers of 
organized relief, 33-39; char- 
ity administrators of, 39 


Takkanot, 105 

Talmud, 47, 48f.; excerpts 
from, 55f., 61; compilations 
and codifications, 61 f. 

Tamchui, 49, 1o1 ff. 

Tanzhaus, 146 

‘Teshubot, 45, 69 


The Hague, 166 
Theodorus, 33 
Theodotos, Synagogue of, 38, 


143 

“Thy needy brother,” 8, 9 

Tibbon, Samuel ibn, 136, 
Judah, 136, 153 

Tithes, 11, 13, 14, 49, 130-132 

Titus, 12 

Tobit, 25, 28-30 

Toledo, 131, 151 

Tortossa, 149 

Tosephta, 36, note, 73 37, 5% 52 

Trade schools, 176 

Trajan, 36 

Transients, 36, 51, 107, 
128, 143 ff., 147, 169, 170 

Treviso, 117 

Trust-fund, wealth, a, 77 

Tur, 64-67, 75 

Turnus Rufus, 58 


1545 


117, 


INDEX 


Uhlhorn, Gehrhard, 22, 84 
Ukba, Mar, 56 

United States. See “America” 
Usha, Synod of, 126, note 2 
Uzziah, 5, 151 


Vagrancy, 175 
Valence, 142 

Van Oven, Joshua, 171 
Venice, 159 

Vespasian, 12 

Vetenos, 38 

Vienna, 150, 157 

Villareal Charity School, 156 
Vital, Hayim, 135 
Vogelstein, 39, note 14; 


158 


War relief, 177 

Wayfarers. See “Transients” 

Wealth comes from and belongs 
to God, 77, 78 

Widows, 11, 112, 137, 159 

Wilna, 157 

Winkler, Dr. Jacob, 153 

Wisdom literature and charity, 
16, 197; 16. a1 

Women, 115 

Worms, 150 


136, 


Xenipheris, synagogue of, 33 
Yad Ha-Hazakah, 61 


Zangwill, Israel, 127 

Zedakah, change in meaning 
from justice to almsgiving, 29- 
30, 80-81; in the codes, 64-69; 
in ethical and _ homilectical 
works, 69-70; as a basic prin- 
ciple and ideal, 75-83; its re- 
lation to Gemilut Chasadim, 
91-93 

Zerephat, woman of, 66 


LO At ra pea ee Be Wires 


ee ie 


} y nies. , bt cia: Wang’) a, 
iy : rane 

‘4 ; yy i) ti a ‘ t H Ae of ‘ i 

i Ro / ‘ My i LNG Yee 





J 
i el { 
' vi | 
iv 
» wi. 
{ 
¥ 
i 
‘ 
f 
' 
7 
e 
4 
‘ * 
{ (iy 
Y 
a f 
iz 
j 
t 
« 
4 
ie] 
J * 
"i 
i 
i 
) wi 
\ 
ih 
ayy 
= 
in 
ni 
ie: 
al 
ra 
® 
: 





5 


HIGHSMITH #4511 





HV17 .F91 


= 
Bs. 
= 
iF) 
“~* 
vas 
° 
> 
© 
> 
= 
= 
” 


An historica 


ry 


cal Seminary—Speer Libra 


Princeton Theologi 





